The Battle for God

“By the 1960's, revolution was in the air throughout the West and the Middle East. In Europe and America the young people took to the streets and rebelled against the modern ethos of their parents. They called for a more just and equal system, protested against the materialism, imperialism, and chauvinism of their governments, refused to fight in their nation's wars or to study in its universities. Sixties youth began doing what the fundamentalists had been doing for decades: they started to create a "counterculture," and "alternative society" in revolt against the values of the mainstream. In many ways, they were demanding a more religious way of life. Most had little time for institutional faith or for the authoritarian structures of the monotheisms."

Although science itself was a "cautious and sober" affair, modern society had elevated science to an ideology and held science to be the only way to truth. The young were in part rebelling against this single-minded and off-balanced perspective. In Armstrong's terms, they rejected this "suppression of mythos by logos". But because the intuitive spiritual traditions had been so long neglected in the West, this rebellion was expressed in self-indulgent, unbalanced ways. There was experimentation with all sorts of alternative expressions of mythos - from drugs to esoteric traditions.

The religious were also upset with this modern rejection of intuitive truth. In the west religion was subjected to ridicule. In the east religion was much more brutally suppressed. By the '60s many were angry enough to mobilize - to right with modern weapons, and to devise a modern ideology. Ideology had become the differentiation between peoples since the French and American revolutions. Some characteristics of an ideology are that it :

is the means of calling the masses to war,
identifies the enemy to explain the present perilous position, and the group that would make things right,
distills complex socio-economics to simple images and slogans,
believes some cannot understand the evident truth because they are "infected by a false consciousness",
is a closed system intolerant of opposition (Marxism/capitalism, colonialism/nationalism, Zionists/Arabs)
hopes for a utopia,
tends to selective interpretations of common human ideals (freedom, equality, fraternity),

Edmund Burke (1729-97) identified that though a society might have been revolutionary, as it progresses new groups musts needs develop counter-revolutionary ideals. This was the situation of the discontented Jews, Christians and Muslims of the '60s and such new ideologies were so developed. They no longer believed the ideologies of their societies, but came to believe that those ideologies were out to annihilate them. They would reshape the myths and symbols of their traditions into a "persuasive blueprint for action that would compel the people to rise up and save their faith from extinction."

In May 1962, Nasser at the peak of his popularity called for a "cultural revolution" and "scientific socialism". Believing he had destroyed the Muslim Brotherhood, and observing the retreat of the ulema (religious community), he set about creating a socialist and secular modern society. Syria followed step thinking the cause of their ills was this retrograde attitude of Islam. Arab scholars began talking about the contribution of Islam in material terms, for indeed, they had contributed much to modern progress (alphabet, algebra, astronomy, medicine, etc) As in the West, the moderns in the Middle East considered religion an obsolete mode of thinking, something restricting needed change..

Of course such a portrayal was simplistic and inaccurate. The past cannot be erased. It lives on in the people. And in response, the new religious ideologies were just a simplistic and aggressive. In 1951, the Pakistani journalist and politician Abul Ala Mawdudi was in Egypt being published. He saw the power of the west and feared obliteration of Islam. He felt that good Muslims could not retreat from politics but must combine against the secularist power. He tried to make Islam modern. He defied the notion of human freedom, the sacred truth of the west, and claimed the God was completely sovereign in all things. The freedom Mawdudi espoused came from this different approach. Human beings were not obliged to obey other human beings, their obligation was only to obey God. The Koran and the Sunnah were sufficient guides for living. The caliphs or rulers were also bound by this holy law. There was no need for legislation. The Shariah was sufficient to regulate society. This vision was still an equation of law and order, but was in Islamic context and in strong rebellion to the secular ideal.

Mawdudi saw other ideologies as flawed, even evil. Democracy was chaos and greed. Communism and Fascism had enslaved people. An Islamic state would be totalitarian but not a dictatorship. He demanded universal jihad.

"No major Muslim thinker had ever made this claim before. It was an innovation required, in Mawdudi's eyes, by the current emergency. Jihad ("struggle") was not a holy war to convert the infidel, as Westerners believed, nor was it purely a means of self-defense, as Abdu had argued. Mawdudi defined jihad as a revolutionary struggle to seize power for the good of all humanity. ... Never before had jihad figured so centrally in official Islamic discourse."

Sayyid Qutb did not start a radical. He was a man of letters who loved English literature. But as he saw the injustice of colonialism across North Africa and experienced disillusion while in America, observing their materialism, he changed. He joined the Muslim Brotherhood in '53, was imprisoned by Nasser in '54 and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labour. He experienced the brutality of the regime first hand. But in prison he became much more radical than Mawdudi and developed an ideology of action while in prison. Qutb can be called the father of Sunni fundamentalism.

Qutb say the religious and the secular as enemies. As a deeply religious man he saw Muhammed's own experience as speaking to the present time. He did not approach Mohammed as a modern, looking merely for facts, he saw the archetype in Mohammed. He saw the strength of the story. In his book "Milestones" he drew a parallel between that story and the universal story of each generation. He saw all worldly events reflecting the eternal archetypal realities. He saw secular modernism as evil because nothing was holy, where for him all things were holy. He called Muslims to restore a sense of the spiritual to society.

Since all Muslims daily practice followed this Mohammedan mythos, there was already a great understanding and sympathy for this new vision. What was new was the turning of this mythos into a logos (our common theme through the book). The generation of Mohammed had set the example for the current generation in all respects - it was a blueprint for action. God had shown how to make a perfect society. The complexity of that story had naturally to be packaged and simplified as this new ideology was formulated, for that is the characteristic process.

The Qutb formula was in four stages, each stage modeled on the life of the prophet.

Revelation. God revealed his plan to one man who formed a jamaah, a group committed to create a new society.
Separation. The jamaah isolated themselves to live in a safe enclave.
Islamic State. Medina became the site where Islam consolidated and prepared.
Jihad. From conflict issued a new society.

This model continues to be relevant for many in the world of the Islam. Qutb's vision constructed a perfect ideology. It was simple, identified the enemy and pointed out the group that would save society. When colonial intrusion into their society did not bring liberation or empowerment, and when the 6 day war discredited secular Arab leadership, there began a religious revival that Qutb's vision helped direct and define.

The moderate Muslim points out the distortion of this formula. Jihad was not central to the prophet's mission. The Koran finds war abhorrent and justifies only war of self-defense. It recognizes other religion and praises other prophets. Its vision is inclusive. Qutb's vision of exclusion goes against the tolerance of the Koran.

But Qutb saw history full of fierce attack against Islam. He saw conspiracy everywhere. And when humans are fighting to survive, they are seldom open to reason and discussion. Qutb was released from prison in 1964, but was re-arrested with hundreds more Muslim Brothers and at Nasser's insistence in 1966, he was executed. The Brothers claimed to be defensive and not offensive in their stockpiling of arms. They did not think themselves then at the fourth stage.

In Iran, Shah Reza Pahlavi announced his White Revolution in '62. It was a secular capitalist package aimed at shifting Iran from feudalism, but means of literacy and profit sharing. He supported Israel and courted American approval which was generous in support. But the increases went to a rich elite and concentrated on the cities. Agricultural decline caused exodus of the poor to the cities. Population doubled in a decade. Change was so rapid for many, they felt strangers in their own country - a recipe for disaster. Those educated in the west felt apart from their own families. Worse, the Shah used coercion, repression and secret police to enforce his program of change.

Due to these brutal methods and loss of tradition, two insurgent groups came into existence, one Marxist (Fedayin-e Khalq) and one Islamic (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Some tried to fight this repressive regime with ideas. The philosopher Ahmed Fardid at the University of Tehran coined the term "West-toxification" (gharbzadegi. This theme found resonance in a society where there was no "gradient of transformation"., and Jalal Al-e Ahmad wrote a book with this name. Ahmad was attracted by Western ideals and ideas but did not see how they could be planted in Iranian soil. He talked of the "agonized schizophrenia" of Western-educated Iranians. He saw the problem. He did not see a solution.

Iranian ulema were more progressive than in Egypt and were aware they had to modernize themselves and their institutions, though they still stood aloof from politics. They began to think in terms of a council rather than the rule of one man. Many of these men would play key roles in the later Islamic Revolution: Bihishti, Motahhari, Tabaabai, and Taleqani. These reformers were convinced Islam was a total way of life, and so considered the traditional distance from politics less a barrier. They did not envisage political participation but rather a standing up for the principle to protect the people. To stand up to the Shah. They revised the curriculum of the schools (madrasahs). They should attend to subjects such as trade, diplomacy and war. The old should listen to the young who were often better educated.

This quiet underground religious introspection of the ulema was interrupted in '63 by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini was teaching ethics at the Fayziyah Madrassah in Qum. He began speaking against the Shah from his pulpit, portraying him as an enemy of Islam and speaking out against the cruelty and injustice of the regime. Naturally SAVAK (the secret police) attacked the school killing some students and arrested Khomeini for a few days. What made Khomeini act in this way and at this time? Armstrong observes that he had through long discipline achieved the high religious status of "sober mystic". In the tradition of Islam, there were two streams of mysticism. One was the "drunken" mysticism of the Sufi. The other was the "sober" mystic who did not surrender to the emotional extremes of mystic exploration, but for whom "the mystical quest associated with mythos must always accompany the practical activities of logos." Before such a man could "begin his political mission, he must first journey from man to God, expose himself to the transforming vision of the divine, and strip himself of the egotism that impedes his self-realization. Only at the end of this long and disciplined process, could he, as it were, return to the world of affairs, preach the word of God, and implement the divine law in society." Khomeini was ready.

There is an Islamic tradition of waiting 40 days after a death to publicly mourn. This caused a growing cycle of public energy as Khomeini and the Shah bumped heads. On the 40th day after the attack on the school, the students mourned their dead companions. Khomeini delivered a speech denouncing the Shah and continued his denunciation over the summer, bringing matters to a rhetorical and emotional peak at the feast of Ashura (the anniversary of the martyrdom of Husain) where he begged the Shah to reform. Naturally he was arrested again. Crowds of support turned out all over Iran. SAVAK attacked them with tanks and guns. When things quieted down thousands had died. Khomeini was saved from execution by being elected to the rank of Grand Ayatollah. He became a hero, with his photograph all over. His speeches were not balanced reason, but "flawed by the usual fundamentalist paranoia. ... (referring to) a conspiracy of Jews, Christians, and imperialists... It was a theology of rage." But it was delivered in terms all Iranians could identify with and comprehend, connected as it was with the martyrdom of Husain. When he spoke out against the Shah's granting legal immunity for Americans and the continued plight of the poor, he was deported, and moved to Najaf (a holy city in Iraq).

The Shah set out to muzzle the clerics by restrictions and by economic means. And he invented a new kind of ulema, a "Civil Islam" obedient to the state, where university educated "mullahs of modernization" were charged with modernizing the peasantry, including duties of literacy and vaccination. And in 1970 he abolished the Islamic calendar, and began promotion of the ancient Persian heritage.

Dr. Ali Shariati was educated in western ways (earning his PhD at the Sorbonne on Persian philosophy) and was convinced it was possible to create a Shii ideology that would meet Iranian spiritual needs, without cutting them off from their roots. He had much impact as a teacher. He was both an intellectual and a spiritual man.

"The Hidden Imam, he used to explain, had not disappeared like Jesus. He was still in the world, but concealed; Shiis could encounter him in that merchant or this beggar. He was waiting to make his appearance, and Shiis must live in constant expectation of hearing the sound of his trumpet, ready at all times to respond to the Imam's summons to the jihad against tyranny. Shiis must look through the concrete, perplexing realities that surrounded them in their everyday lives to catch a glimpse of their secret essence.... Human beings were two-dimensional creatures; they had a spiritual as well as a corporeal existence, needed mythos as well as logos, and every polity must have a transcendent dimension. That was the real meaning of the doctrine of the Imamate: it was a symbolic reminder that a society could not exist without their earthly objectives. To split religion and politics was to betray the principle of tawhid ("unifications"), the cardinal tenant of Islam, which should help Muslims to achieve an integrity that reflected the divine unity."

Shariati reinterpreted the cult of hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca) also. While only a few are given the gift of mysticism, everyone could visit Mecca and share the experience of a lifetime, where one forgets self and experiences a grand sense of unity.

His idea was that in this period of the Occultation (before the reappearance of the Hidden Imam), the authority of the Imam had passed to the people who were themselves responsible for submission to God, elect their own leaders. A Muslim should not be passive, but act against tyranny. The ulema had ruined religion taking it literally, with behaviour to be followed to the letter. Shariati believed in action. It was not enough to weep for Husain, one must be awakened by the ritual to the needs of the poor and to act on their behalf. The very genius of Shiism was its symbolism. The Shiah needed a reformation. Shariati noted that the word politics had its root in "polis" or "city", and the equivalent idea in Islam is "siyasat" or "taming a wild horse". That the Arabic roots of "ummah" and "Imam" was "ready to go". Islam he said was the most dynamic of the faith traditions.

The regime couldn't take this talk and shut down his school in 1973, arresting and torturing him. In 1977 he died in London, (likely a SAVAK operation). But he had prepared educated Iranians for the future revolution.

Khomeini held more sway with the Iranian people even while in exile in Iraq.

"In '71 Khomeini published a landmark book, Hokomat-e eslami (Islamic Government), which developed a Shii ideology of clerical rule. His thesis was shocking and revolutionary. For centuries, shiis had declared all government to be illegitimate during the absence of the Hidden Imam, and had never thought it correct for the ulema to rule the state. But in Islamic Government, Khomeini argued that the ulema must take over the government in order to safeguard the sovereignty of God. ... instead of a parliament creating its own man-made legislation, there should be an assembly to apply the Shariah to every aspect of day-to-day life. ... Like Shariati, he did not believe that religion could be privatized any longer."

Khomeini believed "Islam is the religion of militant individuals who are committed to faith and justice. It is the religion of those who desire freedom and independence. It is the school of those who struggle against imperialism." And he believed that Iranians had forgotten their identity, replacing it with a western identity. The laws of Islam were not only better for Iranians, they were of divine origin. In his exile he was taking on the character of an Imam, living next to the shrine of Ali and removed from his people. Like Shariati, he believed a political solution was not possible without a religious renewal. In '72 he wrote an article "The Greater Jihad" where he developed his notion of Velayat-e Faqih (the government of the jurist) further. Such a leader would acquire the same infallibility as the Imams, as he divested himself of ego and attachment to the world..

Khomeini was 70 years old. He did not think the regime of the Shah could be toppled. He thought it might take 200 years for an Islamic State to come into being in Iran. He was mostly exploring how "the mythology and mysticism of the Shiah could be adapted to break centuries of sacred tradition and allow a cleric to rule Iran. He had yet to see how this mythos would work out in practice.

In Israel during the '60's, Religious Zionism was developing a Jewish fundamentalism that translated myth into politics. Their settlements were alongside the secular Zionists and did not see Zionism incompatible with Orthodoxy as did the Hasidim. They were Orthodox and understood the Torah in literal terms where they read that God promised this land to the descendants of Abraham. There was a sense of wholeness, of history completing itself, of healing in their vision. And they saw themselves as rebels against secularism. They needed their own schools and institutions. The standards were high. The curriculum included modern science as well as the study of Torah. In some ways, they were between the two worlds, too secular for the Hasidim and too religious for others.

In the '50s, there was an interesting development. A group of fourteen year-old boys in the Yeshiva high school decided to live stringent religious lives. They called themselves Gahelet (glowing embers). They supported and criticized each other. They imagined a world where the men could study the Torah, thus taking up the mythos role, and the woman would support them and work the fields, thus taking up the complementary logos role. They fell under the spell of Rabbi Kook who was then in his 70's (referred to earlier in Ch 6).

Things fell together. Kook the Younger had streamlined his father's ideology into a modern form. Kook the Elder felt there was divine purpose in secular Zionism. Kook the Younger felt every thing and every person was part of the holy process of the redemption of Israel. Far from shunning secular Israel, the Gahelet honoured secular Israel, considering an army rifle as holy as a phylactery. The messianic age had begun. The land, the people, the Torah were a holy triad. Jews had to settle the biblical lands - it was a religious duty to do so.

At this time in the '50s, there was little hope of these things, but Kook was confident history was moving forward under a divine ordinance. In the premodern world, myth and politics were separate. Kook joined them. And the Gehelet were pleased with their new rabbi, for he had made Zionism a religion..In these things Kook the Junior quite inverted Kook the Senior's vision. Openness to other faiths and traditions had turned into intolerance of Christian and Arab.

When in '67 the Six-Day War occurred and Israel dramatically increased its land holding, the Gehelet became even more convinced of their cause. The whole country was in a state of euphoria. From daily hearing their neighbours threatening their demise, they had most remarkably defeated the lot and now controlled much of biblical Israel including Jerusalem.

"But for Kookists, it seemed conclusive proof the Redemption was indeed under way and that God was pushing history forward to its final consummation. The fact that no Messiah had actually appeared did not worry the Gahelet; they were moderns, and perfectly prepared to see the "Messiah" as a process rather than a person.."

Both religious and secular citizens forestalled government attempts to return land for peace. Kookists were being drawn into the mainstream. In April '68 Moshe Levinger led some Kookist families to celebrate Passover in Hebron, the patriarchal city where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried; and then rather than return they stayed as squatters. They were not cooperative with the Arab Muslims who also venerated these patriarchs, but rude. They would not share with the Muslims and they drank wine and flew the Israeli flag purposely to offend their neighbours. Reluctantly the government permitted a nearby settlement for them which by '72 had 5000 settlers.

Then in October of 1973 there occurred the Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria invaded the Golan Heights. Nobody won. It shook the Israelis. The Kookists claimed it was God's punishment. Secular Zionism they said had not eliminated anti-Semitism they said, for the state of Israel was still in jeopardy of total destruction. Clearly the rationalism and democratic culture of the modern west must be eliminated and a return made to true Jewish religion. The Kookists were now ready for this 3-fold struggle: against the west who restrained Jewish expansion, against the Arab, and against Israeli secularism.

NOTE. As we move to the 3d group in this chapter, the Christians, we need to be particularly aware of the confusion of terminology again respecting "fundamentalism". Although her definition from the introduction is clear and useful (link at top of page), she often uses descriptors to identify them, that are very much less accurate or exclusive. For most Christians share similar beliefs - certainly most Protestant Christians. And in the study we are talking more about behaviour consequent to belief. Political action arising out of the fear of modern secular society. For example Armstrong cites a 50% belief in inerrancy and 33% born-again experience in a '79 gallop poll as substantiating the substantial numbers of the fundamentalist constituency, when these are not exclusive descriptors. In fact this point of un-clarity is a major obstacle in determining the thread of her argument. Giving credit to her Catholic training, and some leeway in this regard, we should try to differentiate the fundamentalism Armstrong and Marty are describing from the conservative congregations that hold similar belief, but do not show the exclusiveness nor the antagonism to other persons and other faiths as Armstrong describes as fundamentalist.

In the United States there was a similar readiness amongst Protestant fundamentalists. They saw the chaos of the '60's with its permissiveness, its flagrant sexuality, equal rights for homosexuals, blacks and women; as shaking the foundations of society. With developments in Israel, the Rapture was clearly near. They were a sizeable constituency, but they felt themselves under attack - as outsiders - and had not organized politically yet.

Three factors contributed to a growing confidence and growing numbers.

The development of the south. Liberal Christianity had made little progress in the south and so there was no need for fundamentalism. But in the '60's there was migration to the sun-belt from the north and new liberal, modern and secular ideas came south. Their agrarian society became increasingly urban. Parents were alarmed at their children's taking up these new ideas. People turned to the churches, especially the new Radio churches: Pat Robertson's "700 Club", Jerry Falwell's TV Ministry, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
The rapid expansion of state power in America after WWII. The removal from schools of worship, and bible reading and prayer. Fundamentalists and evangelicals were outraged by this. Those schools that did not admit blacks had their tax exempt status revoked. Similar to the Scopes trial, both sides believed themselves in the right. The government seemed to be invading the family and local community with godless laws. People felt true religion was in danger. Christian families began to take their children from public schools. Between '65 and '83 enrollment in evangelical schools increased six-fold and about 100,000 children were taught at home. By the '90s there were 3290 members in two national associations of Christian schools. There was a desire for a holistic education where everything could be taught from a Christian perspective, and spiritual education was as important as science and math.
An enemy was defined. As earlier identified, an ideology needs a clear enemy. Fundamentalist ideologies identified the enemy as "secular humanism". This was not the foreigner as with Islam, but the enemy within. Over time, secular humanism was a place that anything bad, anything wrong, anything you didn't like was put. There isn't really any group anywhere that holds the views that were put forward as representing secular humanism, but that didn't matter. The elements were not false, they were more a list of the opposite of their own belief, and a gathering of ideas that constructed a caricature. But it was a most effective tool for the TV preacher. They accused secular humanists of denying God and Jesus, salvation and biblical creation, of believing there was no right or wrong, and of being unpatriotic, as some examples. Secular humanism came to be regarded as nearly institutional, and as a rival religion. Tim LaHaye (co-author of the Left Behind series of premillenialist novels) identified secular humanists as being "anti-God, anti-moral, anti-self-restraint, and anti-American," intent to "destroy Christianity and the American family." They identified the various persons who were the secular humanists in the government (about half) and saw the conspiracy as having infiltrated the whole world. "The Protestant fundamentalists' view of modern society in general and of America in particular was as demonic as that of any Islamist." .

American democracy and liberty were not the goals of the founding peoples, who rather wanted "right government in church and state". Pat Robertson holds that the "revolutionaries had wanted nothing to do with mass rule; they wanted to establish a republic in which the will of the majority and all egalitarian tendencies would be controlled by biblical law. The Founding Fathers certainly did not want a pure, direct democracy in which the majority can do as it pleases. They were as appalled as any Muslim fundamentalist by the idea of a government implementing its own laws: the Constitution was "not endowed with ability to create laws apart from the higher law [of God] but only to administer fundamental law as man is able to grasp and approximate it."

Together these things persuaded fundamentalists who before had not been politically active, that if they did not become active, the secular humanists would destroy America. An earlier element in their keeping distance from politics was their belief in the approaching millennium. If the world was doomed there was no point in getting involved. But in 1970 Hal Lindsey published "The Late Great Planet Earth", a trendy version of the coming end times in which there was little part for America. Christians should just watch and wait. But in "The 1980's, Countdown to Armageddon" he argued that if America came to its senses, it could remain a world power right through the millennium.

They were ready. They had an enemy. They had a vision of what America should be. They believed they had the commission and the power to effect the program. They knew there was a drop in liberal congregations in the '60's while they had seen 8% annual growth. The top ten Christian television programs took in a billion dollars a year and employed over a thousand people. Jerry Falwell was a principle player. In '88 his church had 18,000 members and 60 pastors. His Liberty Baptist College had 1500 students. Falwell no longer wanted to be separate from society. As an educator he was preparing the future "spiritual army". Unlike Bob Jones, we sought accreditation for his college. He wanted to take on the secular humanists. He was not extravagant as were many other televangelists, but just industrious. He was planning an offensive. "So when secular power brokers were looking around for somebody to lead a right-wing resurgence in the 1980's, Falwell was their man. He clearly understood the dynamic of modern capitalist society and would be able to engage with it as an equal."

"In Europe and the United States, at least, democracy, freedom, and toleration were liberating. But fundamentalists could not see this, not because they were perverse, but because they had experienced modernity as an assault that threatened their most sacred values and seemed to put their very existence in jeopardy. By the end of the 1970s, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim rationalists were poised to fight back."

	Clicking the icon left will activate the e-mail on your machine and direct your comments to us. Comments are welcome and will be posted with usual editorial courtesies.
EMAIL