The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition seems to have monotheistic faith as a common thread. However, modern literary criticism of the Hebrew Bible and archaeological research in ancient Israelite religion questions the monotheism of early figures such as Abraham and even Moses. Exploring the development of monotheism in the Abrahamic traditions allows us to put monotheism in a larger historical framework which can be extended to include other religions such as Hinduism.

To begin with, we need to take a closer look at the traditional biblical (as well as Islamic) picture of Abraham and other Israelite figures as monotheist worshippers of the Israelite deity. Essentially this is the view that conservative Jews, Christians and Muslims have held to based upon their reading of either the Biblical book of Genesis and in the Qur'an. It posits the original monotheism of humanity all the way down from Adam, shared by Noah, and continued in Abraham and his Israelite descendants.

In a nutshell, Genesis presents a history of the Israelites beginning with their ancestor Abraham (whose Hebrew name, ab-raham literally means "the father of the womb", which is an idiomatic way of saying "the ancestor of the many descendants" or "the ancestor of the tribe"). Abraham is portrayed as being an immigrant to the land of Canaan from the Babylonian city of Ur (in current-day Iraq) who has settled in Israel. Abraham is followed by his sons Ishmael and Isaac, as well as his grandson Jacob, to whom is given the divinely-appointed name of "Israel". Jacob's given name subsequently becomes the name of the tribe of his descendants. All the above figures are traditionally viewed as monotheist immigrants, as compared to the indigenous Canaanite polytheists who inhabit the land. Finally, Abraham's great-grandson Joseph is sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt, where he gains influence and later invites the other Israelites during a period of drought in Canaan. The line of Abraham's descendants is then lost, but the story of the Israelites is continued in the Biblical book of Exodus many years later. In Exodus, Moses leads his now enslaved tribe out of Egypt and back towards the land of Canaan. Moses is viewed not only as a monotheist, but the first to learn God's personal name, Yahweh (or Jehovah in English) and as the recipient of the Commandments or the Law (Hebrew torah, and Arabic tawrat). Moses' successor Joshua leads the Israelites to conquer the cities of Canaan, and the land is subsequently known by the name of the newly-ruling tribe of Israel. Finally, the Biblical books of Kings recount the rule of David and Solomon as divinely-appointed monotheist monarchs of Israel.

The above picture of Biblical history is almost entirely retained in the Qur'an, with a few minor changes such as Abraham being relocated to Mecca rather than Ur (in order that he be able to build the Ka'ba). Thus Jews, Christians and Muslims all take for granted that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses were monotheists. However, the monotheism of the early Israelites has been questioned by many modern historians of religion. A very brief introduction to this debate is given in the first chapter of Karen Armstrong's book, A History Of God.

One point to bear in mind is that the tribe of Israel incorporates in its own name an evocation of its ancient deity: namely El. In Hebrew, El is usually translated simply as "god" or "God"; but is also the name of one of the chief gods of the polytheist Canaanites. Another point to bear in mind is that Hebrew and Canaanite are essentially different dialects of the same language. Thus we should not be surprised if there is overlap of religious language. Hebrew words isra-el thus means either "El strives" or "one who strives with El". The latter meaning is used in the Biblical story of how Jacob gains this name through literally wrestling with God.

Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, 'Let me go, for the day is breaking.' But Jacob said, 'I will not let you go, unless you bless me.' So he said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, 'Jacob.' Then the man said, 'You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.' Then Jacob asked him, 'Please tell me your name.' But he said, 'Why is it that you ask my name?' And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the place Peni-El (Hebrew for "face of God"), saying, 'For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.' (Genesis 32:24-30)

The above passage is quite bizarre in terms of our modern concepts of monotheism. God (whose name of El is confirmed in the place name Peni-El) is depicted as a mysterious spirit of the night who must escape before sunrise. This Jacob story shows that the Israelites acknowledged that their original deity was El from a very early point in their history, or they would not use this particular divine name to identify the name of their tribe. As a side note, the word translated simply as "God" above is the Hebrew word Elohim; it is actually a plural form. This word will become significant later in our discussion.

The early Israelite worship of El is further supported by various other Biblical passages. Abraham and his descendants are recorded as worshipping El under the name of El-Shaddai (Hebrew for 'El of the mountain', but traditionally translated 'God Almighty') numerous times:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am El-Shaddai; walk before me, and be blameless. (Genesis 17:1)

Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him, '...May El-Shaddai bless you and make you fruitful and numerous.. (Genesis 28:1-3)

God appeared to Jacob again... and he blessed him. God said to him, 'Your name is Jacob; no longer shall you be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.' So he was called Israel. God said to him, 'I am El Shaddai; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you. (Genesis 35:9-11)

Then their father Israel (previously known as Jacob) said to them,...'may El Shaddai grant you mercy... (Genesis 43:11-14)

And Jacob said to Joseph, 'El Shaddai appeared to me... and he blessed me..." (Genesis 48:3-4)

In addition to the repeated naming of El-Shaddai above, Abraham also worships his deity with various other names, including El-Olam (Hebrew for "eternal El") and El-Elyon ("El the most high").

Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, El-Olam. (Genesis 16:33)

But Abram said to the king of Sodom, 'I have sworn to the Lord, El-Elyon, maker of heaven and earth...' (Genesis 14:22)

The above makes apparent that the early Israelites worshipped a deity whom they called El. But who exactly was El? Modern historians of religion identify this name with one of the deities of the early Canaanites, the polytheists among whom the early Israelite monotheist immigrants were depicted as residing. While the Bible provides little insight into the beliefs of the Canaanites, archaeological excavations of the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit (at Ras Shamra, in modern-day Syria) has provided us with a great deal of knowledge of Canaanite myths. These feature a Canaanite pantheon which includes the gods El (meaning "deity") and Baal (meaning "lord").

But a later step in the development of Israelite monotheism came with an altogether new name for the deity which ultimately supplanted the older El-based ones. Several centuries after the time of Abraham, the Bible depicts Moses as meeting a deity named Yahweh at the burning bush. Yahweh affirms having been the deity previously known as El-Shaddai, in spite of the unfamiliar name now used:

God also spoke to Moses and said to him: 'I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El-Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them. (Exodus 6:2-4)

But even with the advent of Yahweh, traces of Canaanite religion persist. El is the elder deity of the Canaanite pantheon; he is pictured as being the king of the gods, and presiding over a divine council. Yahweh is portrayed similarly in the Biblical text below:

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Yahweh, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the heavenly beings is like Yahweh, a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him? (Psalms 89:5-7)

Furthermore, the Canaanite god El was given the title "Bull El" due to his strength and fertility. It's no coincidence that the the Bible denounces Moses' followers for slipping into polytheism by worshipping a golden calf; they were obviously worshipping Canaanite El. But remarkably, the Biblical book of Genesis refers to Yahweh as the "Bull of Jacob", presumably a title which has been inherited from El:

'Joseph is a fruitful bough... The archers fiercely attacked him; Yet his bow remained taut... by the hands of the Bull of Jacob... (Genesis 49:22-24)

Nor is the remnant of the Canaanite pantheon only to be seen in the association of Yahweh with El, the ancient king of the gods. There are also Biblical traces of Baal, the youthful Canaanite warrior-god of storm and sky. Baal's epithet was "rider of the clouds", which is also applied to Yahweh in the Biblical passage below:

Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds - his name is Yahweh - be exultant before him. (Psalms 68:4)

The depiction of Yahweh as a sky and warrior god is very clear in the following Biblical text celebrating the escape from the Pharaoh of Egypt and sometimes called the "Song of Moses":

Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to Yahweh: I will sing to Yahweh, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea... Yahweh is a warrior; Yahweh is his name. 'Pharaoh's chariots and his army he cast into the sea; his picked officers were sunk in the Red Sea. The floods covered them... your right hand, O Yahweh, shattered the enemy... you sent out your fury, it consumed them like stubble.

At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up, the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea... You blew with your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters. (Exodus 15:1-11)

The obvious attribution of storm, wind and flood to Yahweh above seems very reminiscent of Canaanite Baal. The following verses make the sky god aspect of Yahweh even clearer, by glorifying lightning over the trees and thunder over the water with his voice:

The voice of Yahweh is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, Yahweh, over mighty waters. The voice of Yahweh breaks the cedars; Yahweh breaks the cedars of Lebanon. The voice of Yahweh flashes forth flames of fire. The voice of Yahweh shakes the wilderness; The voice of Yahweh causes the oaks to whirl, and strips the forest bare; and in his temple all say, 'Glory!' (Psalm 29:1-9)

How did early Israelite religion come to incorporate so much of the above Canaanite polytheist imagery? This question only arises because our preconception is of a monotheist Israelite religion with no space to accommodate Canaanite deities. This preconception is not always borne out by the textual evidence of the Bible. For example, let us look at the following commandment to Moses:

I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods besides me. You shall not make for yourself an idol... You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I Yahweh your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (Exodus 20:2-5)

Read carefully, the above does not actually say that no other gods besides Yahweh exist. Rather, it says that the Israelites must worship Yahweh alone, and not give any mind to other gods. Whether or not they exist is a different matter, and not dealt with here. This is not strict monotheism as modern Jews, Christians or Muslims think of it. It is more akin to henotheism, the belief that although many gods may exist, only one is to be worshipped. Henotheism seems like a strange concept in the Biblical context, but again that is only because of our preconception that the Bible is purely monotheist. In more explicitly polytheist contexts, it is commonplace; for example, although Hinduism has a pantheon of many gods and goddesses, individual worshippers often worship only one of them in practice (for example, Shaivites focus on Shiva, Vaishnavites on Vishnu, etc). A very interesting Biblical verse, given below, smacks of henotheism:

When Elyon apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

Elyon above is usually just translated as "God", and assumed to refer to the same monotheist deity as Yahweh. However, we have seen that Abraham seems to have worshipped the Canaanite god El with the name El-Elyon, while Yahweh only appeared much later to Moses. In that case, the above might actually preserve a tradition by which Yahweh and El are two separate deities, and the elder god El is ceding authority over the Israelites to the newcomer Yahweh. Again, this possibility fits perfectly with henotheism, but not monotheism.

From a historical point of view, the assertion that Israelite religion was originally monotheist is quite difficult to maintain. The Bible itself tells us that Abraham and his sons, the founding ancestors of the Israelites, lived in a Canaanite, polytheist environment. But we have only the Biblical tradition that Abraham was an immigrant from Babylonia to distinguish him from his Canaanite neighbors. The archaeological impossibility of ever verifying the immigration or even existence of a single individual into Canaan thousands of years ago means that we will never be able to verify this critical Biblical claim. On the other hand, we can see from traces of El and Baal in the Bible that the early Israelites who lived in Canaan actually worshipped something similar to Canaanite gods: so how do we know that the first Israelites were not originally Canaanites? If Abraham really came from Ur, why would he and his tribe speak Hebrew, a dialect of the Canaanite language? Why would his tribe name themselves "Isra-El" after a Canaanite deity?

To historians it seems much more likely that Abraham himself was Canaanite, and that the accounts of him migrating from Ur are fictional. From the perspective of modern historians, this is a much easier claim to make, as one does not have to prove that Abraham's family migrated from Ur. The Babylonian origin of Abraham probably served a dual purpose; firstly, it associated him with the ancient Babylonian civilization, which was older and more renowned than that the politically insignificant province of Canaan. Secondly, asserting Abraham's non-Canaanite origins enabled later monotheist Biblical writers to claim that he was not a polytheist Canaanite. This is where modern historians part company with the Biblical account.

It is at this stage of the investigation that we have to change track. So far, we have looked at the melding of Canaanite and Israelite deities from the purely textual perspective of the Bible. While this is both enlightening and a necessary starting point, it is far from the whole story. The greater portion of the modern evidence for the evolution of Israelite culture and religion lies in modern archaeology, not in isolated textual study. This evidence has been elegantly presented by the archaeologist William G. Dever in his book, Who were the early Israelites, and where did they come from?

The first Biblical episode that we have any hope of investigating archeologically is the exodus from Egypt led by Moses, which culminated in the conquest of Canaan by his successor Joshua. This story of large-scale conquest should be apparent in the archaeological record as the point where Canaanite culture, dominant since Abraham, was replaced by the Israelite culture of Moses' followers. This is convenient, because another mystery of the Bible is intricately tied up with Moses: this is the divine name, "Yahweh", which he was the first to learn. Etymologically, it is a mystery, with no grammatically obvious meaning in Hebrew. Even the early Israelites seem to have regarded it as something of a mystery, as is apparent from the first encounter between Moses and his newly discovered deity:

But Moses said to God, 'If I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you", and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' 14God said to Moses, 'I am who I am.' (Exodus 3:13)

As many Biblical translators have pointed out, "I am who I am" is simply an idiomatic way of saying, "Do not concern yourself with who I am." This verse seems to reflect a genuine confusion among the Israelites as to the identity of their new deity named Yahweh. This would make perfect sense if the Israelites were indeed originally Canaanites, since Yahweh was not one the gods of Canaan. In that case, we are left with the conclusion that Yahweh was a new god, perhaps a foreign god. So how did Yahweh become the main name of the Israelite God? Dever has interesting answers to both these questions.

Investigating the archaeological record of Palestine at the time which should correspond to Moses, Dever surveys all the major excavations and finds no evidence for any invasion of Canaan by conquering Israelites. He does, however, locate a point in history at which existing Canaanite settlements are disbanded or depopulated, and new ones Israelite ones created in their place. However, it turns out that there is no evidence at all for this change being caused by an armed invasion of Israelites. Rather, it seems to be the result of indigenous social disruption which accompanied the transition from late Bronze Age to early Iron Age, around 1300-1200 BC. Possibly over-taxed and oppressed by the despotic rulers of Bronze Age Canaan, the peasantry seem to have voted with their feet by abandoning both the rulers and their large settlements. These were replaced by new, smaller Iron Age Israelite settlements. But there is no indication of large-scale invasion causing this change. Dever recounts that archaeological evidence, in particular the continuity of pottery style evolution, indicates that there was no new ethnic group taking over Canaan during this transition. Rather, the indication is that Canaanite culture evolved into Israelite culture during this period:

Although potting techniques... may change from Late Bronze II to Iron I, virtually all of the individual forms that we do have exhibit a strong, and I would say direct, continuity. Thus our early Israelites look just like Canaanites. (Dever p. 121)

This fits in very well with the continuity that we have seen between Canaanite imagery of El and Baal and Biblical imagery of Yahweh. Dever also notes evidence for the origin of Yahweh. Moses is depicted as having first encountered Yahweh while he journeyed in Median, or the desert areas ranging from the Sinai peninsula (between Egypt and Palestine) and northern Arabia. Egyptologists have found several ancient texts indicating a possible origin of Yahweh in this region. The dates of the Egyptian texts (roughly 1500 ?Ĭ 1200 BC) also correspond roughly in date to when Moses would have to have lived in order for his follower to migrate to Canaan at the end of the Bronze Age:

According to Redford, the early Israelites were simply a contingent of the Shasu Bedouin of southern Canaan, well known to us from the 18th-19th Dynasty Egyptian records. There are several rather detailed descriptions of the Shasu, placing them principally on the semi-arid borders of Egyptian lands... Several fascinating texts make reference to a deity "Yhw (in) the land of the Shasu", recalling the Biblical tradition that also derives Moses' knowledge of Yahweh from the Land of Midian. Indeed, such texts are our earliest known reference to the Israelite Yahweh, and among the few anywhere outside the Bible. (Dever p. 150)

It makes perfect sense that Yahweh is a mysterious word in Hebrew if it was in fact an imported, non-Hebrew word. It seems that migration of small groups was a continuous process between Israel, Egypt and the surrounding lands; people probably went wherever there was a better crop and more food. According to Dever, it is likely that some of these groups moved into Israel from both Egypt and Median during the period of Canaanite collapse, bringing with them religious traditions of Moses and Yahweh.

The political vacuum created at the end of Bronze Age Canaan seemingly resulted in a religious vacuum as well. It was in this vacuum that new traditions of emigrating from Egypt under Moses (which is in fact an Egyptian name, meaning "born of"; similar to Tut-mose, "born of Tut"), of worshipping a desert deity named Yahweh, and finally the images of the Canaanite gods El and Baal could all be combined. The result was a new Israelite religion which grew with the new Iron Age settlements, and gradually became monotheist as the old gods El and Baal were absorbed into the new figure of Yahweh.

Thus the story of the evolution of Israelite monotheism is much more complex than we might have thought. Interestingly, the story does not end there but continues with the advent of Islam centuries later in Arabia. The Qur'anic use of the Arabic Allahumma is apparently derived from the Hebrew Elohim, the common biblical word for "God". The Arabic word Allah, on the other hand, seems to be a contraction of "al ilah" ("the deity" or "God" in Arabic). Allah seems to have been an indigenous deity of the pre-Islamic Arabs, as evidenced by the name of Muhammad's father, Abdullah ("worshipper of Allah"). Thus the Qur'an unifies the Hebrew term for God (as represented by Allahumma) with an indigenous Arab one (Allah).

So we are left with a very interesting view of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition; one which may greatly change its interactions with other religious traditions in the current day. If monotheist worship of Yahweh in Israel started after Moses, it would seem that previous Biblical and Qur'anic figures such as Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph were all polytheist. Since these figures are all revered as primordial Muslims in the Qur'an, the surprising conclusion is that the definition of "Muslim" has changed over the millennia, along with the definition of God itself. In spite of apparently believing in a polytheist religion that Muslims today would not even recognize, the Qur'an has no reservations of the high status of Abraham.

Say: No, but follow the religion of Abraham, the upright (Qur'an 2:135)

The unwavering Qur'anic support of Abraham is very significant for modern day Muslims. If we accept the historical evidence that Abraham was polytheist, then we have found grounds for a more pluralistic view of Islam in the many verses praising him. This is very relevant in the context of South Asia, for example, where fundamentalist Muslim leaders routinely criticize Hinduism for being polytheist.

More generally, given the historical evidence that even Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism has evolved from very different religious ideas, it becomes harder to criticize any other religion for not being monotheist. This enables us to develop a Qur'anic theology based on genuine respect and appreciation for other religions as divinely-inspired, regardless of how different they may seem. The following verses are relevant:

And for every nation there is a messenger (Qur'an 10:47)

To every nation We appointed sacred rites which they are to perform. (Qur'an 22:67)

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it... For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. (Qur'an 5:48)

The above seems to imply that the variety of religious faiths that we see in the world may all be part of a larger divine scheme of things. How do we know that all of these are not simply the "sacred rites" appointed to different nations, each corresponding to various divinely-approved "traced-out ways" (shir'at in Arabic, with a similar etymology as shari'ah)? They may seem different and strange to us, but so would Abraham's Canaanite polytheism. And the Qur'an is very positive about Abraham; so it becomes impossible for us to criticize any religion based on doctrine. As the above makes clear, the only way left to criticize any religion is based on the "good works" of its followers. From this viewpoint, Islam does not become merely tolerant of other religions, but actually appreciative of them.

An interesting consequence of this discussion is that over their disparate histories, the Judeo-Christian Muslim tradition winds up looking a lot like Hinduism. Both started out thousands of years ago with polytheism and moved towards monotheism. In Israel that happened millennia ago, with the absorption of El and Baal into the figure of Yahweh. In India it happened about a century ago with the Brahmo Samaj (as a result of which, the poems and songs of the Bengali Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore are sufficiently monotheist to be used as hymns in Christian churches in Bangladesh).

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz postmodern zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz postmodern zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

A major problem with this thesis is that, when the Quran praises Abraham, it is praising the Abraham of the Quran, who is not necessarily the same as the Abraham reconstructed by modern historians.
I don't know if the Quran ever demands that Abraham was a monotheist. But the Bible certainly does. Thus, when rabbinic and Christian writings uphold Abraham as an exemplar for their faith, they are deliberately pointing to a version of Abraham who was in their minds absolutely monotheistic. If modern scholars want to quibble with the historic likelihood of Abraham's monotheism, then let them do that. But they can't both do that and simultaneously appeal to Quranic and biblical praises of Abraham as a foundation for legitimizing polytheism, for those praises had no such thought in mind at all.

Itís amazing how people are still drawn to the fake drama of taking on religious truths and paradigms with academic arguments that are, beyond the thin veil, as feeble as cob web. I know of someone who knew Abraham well and He says: ìSay [to them, O Muhammad], ëNo! [We follow] the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolatersí.î (sura 2, v. 135) And He says: ìOr do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes were Jews or were Christians? Say, ëDo you know best, or does God?í And who does greater wrong than one who conceals a testimony he received from God? And God is not heedless of what you do.î (sura 2, v. 140) And He said: ì Who forsakes the creed of Abraham accept the self-made fool? Truly, We selected [Abraham] in this world, and in the Hereafter he shall surely be among the righteous. When his Lord said to him, ëSurrender!í he said, ëI have surrendered to the Lord of the Worldsí.î (2, v. 130-131)

The Oneness of God is threaded through all of time and every bit of creation. To suggest that monotheism evolved is to suggest that God did. We take refuge with Him from false ideas, no matter how gilded are the words that cargo them.

What a crappy article for the beginning of Ramadan and the opportunity to gain from its secrets. Is this about "ratings"? Readership falling? Need some controversy? Dang, trust in Allah, folks!

Yeah, the archeological evidence makes a nice read, expecially in regards to the cultural history of the region, but I don't think its solid enough to draw conclusions about the origins or evolution of monotheism. Dever and Finklestien do have thier critics, although the evidence we have is concrete, its meaning and interpretations certainly are not; its much too spotty, I think.

Part two: it's an untenable argument to find inspiration for tolerance in an ethos the Quran censures without equivocation: idolatry, polytheism, etc. Toleration is policy, education, self-assurance, etc, not mutation. Again, this is stinking new-agism, some attempt at dramatics that is as intellectually deep as a kiddie pool and methodically sound as Enie Meanie Minie Mo.

Zeeshan,

The idea of Monotheism is not alien to Hinduism as most people think. What has happened is that superficial analysis has come to masquerade as scholarship when it pertains to Hinduism, mainly because knowledgeable Hindus are silent; which in turn is because that is the way they have always been. Somehow it does not matter to them.

Long before the 'reformists' of the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj came on the scene, Hindu philosophers had grappled with monotheism, polytheism, idolatry, caste and all those supposed ills of Hinduism.

It is probably too complicated for me to understand, let alone explain! But the whole idea of 'Vishnu' is that of a monotheistic God. The BhagawadGita is a discussion between Krishna and Arjuna about this concept. But, in what is a very traditional Hindu way, there are no edicts issued to NOT worship any other God. All that is said is that no matter who you worship, ultimately it is the one God that gets the fruit of all your devotion.

Now, why do we have a plethora of Gods in India? India's greatness has always been that anyone could worship anyone or anything. There was no violence or force to do this or that (in spite of allegations that Brahmins destroyed Buddhism - different story for another time).

The fact that we have in India Synagogues, Churches and Mosques going back to the very time of the birth of these religions, speaks for the true nature of the people who lived here. As is it true even today, notwithstanding the hue and cry about Hindus abusing Muslims! One only has to look for another country on earth where so much violence has happened between two religions and yet continue to live together; it is very unlikely we will find such a place.

Surely, had they been like the present day Saudi Arabians, no other religion should have flourished in India but Hinduism? This is not said to incite anger in Muslims and Christians, but to point out that the very act of allowing anyone to worship anything brings with it the risk of a multitude of Gods - and Goddesses, of course, lest we forget!
...continued...

>>India's greatness has always been that anyone could worship anyone or anything.

And, yet you wring your hands on another thread that Muslims are stubbornly insisting on worshipping God and sticking to that 'montheism thing'...

Whatever they plan to link to Abraham, they have absolutely nothing. It's already common knowledge that the Israelis faced a time where idolatry and monotheism was rampant, as the Torah was exchanged orally. Unless they can prove they have found the body of Abraham grasping idols of worship or writings of Abraham ascribing multiple divinities, you will certainly find no argument here.

Additionally, a name is a name. If Allah was present amongst the idol worships of anybody beyond Abraham, it only supports the idea that Abraham provided the groundworks for Allah (or any name thereof) and the people distorted it when they came in contact with polytheism.

Prophets are sent as reminders of monotheism, it is not guaranteed such monotheism will continue. This does not mean Abraham was a polytheist, but rather he lived in a polytheist society that eventually absorbed his people, only to be led straight once again by the next Prophet.

The Qur'an itself says that you may call Allah by any name, so long as he is one and only one and it is the best of names you have chosen.

For example, Jesus was present amongst the idols of the Kabah when Muhammad came. Does that mean Christianity was polytheist? No, it meant that Christian pictures were among false idols and that some Christians had gone astray to idolatry, still accepting their old ways.

.... continued....
My own opinion is that time also causes groups of people to splinter no matter how cohesive they were at the beginning.

In the timeline of the world, compared to Hindu thoughts, Judaic, Christian and Muslim thoughts have been around for far less time. And look at the splintering that has already happened in Judaism, Christianity and Islam! Given that reality, what else CAN you expect in Hinduism then? Because it has probably existed in complex variations for literally since Humans began to think!

Is it possible that five thousand years from now Islamic thought will be different from as they exist today? I don't know, but being a believer in the equality of all human beings, it seems to me that History does repeat itself. But looking at Christians and the multitude of cults they have within, I am sometimes puzzled as to why they think they are 'better' than the Hindus who worship idols! It seems to they are well on the way to building many a new towers of Babel!

Endpost.

Omar,

I hope the others donít mind me merging the two discussions into one here.

My point in the argument about Vande Maataram was to focus on the rigid mindset of 'this monotheism thing', that is counter productive in the political sense to Indian Muslims.

The point of saying in this discussion that people were free to worship whichever god they chose to in India, is to point out the flexibility of thought that let all these world religions flourish in India. In a way, Zeeshan's observations in this essay, brings these two arguments together because the fact is that Hinduism never penalized people for worshipping what each one believed was the 'one true god'. This logically lead, initially, to many Gods within the dominant culture - ëHindu cultureí if you will, when there were not that many ëreligionsí to go around, and later on extended itself to many religions.

Surely you would agree with me that you would find more Hindus who accepted Allah or Jesus as Gods, whereas it might be a stretch to find Muslims who accept Vishnu and Lakshmi as Gods too?

That is where the whole problem lies when one group believes their version of the divine is the ONLY version. The Hindus for most part have readily accepted that Allah or Jesus is God in his many manifestations because Hinduism DOES allow for many such manifestations, whereas the rigid command of there is no God but one God does not allow for the recognition of other GODS.

Of course, I am not implying that Islam was spread by violence or any such incendiary argument. I am saying that while Islam does not impose itself on anyone, saying just that is not enough in this world of mortal men who use any opportunity they can get for political purposes. Vande Maataram being a classic example of a simple song being declared to be an insidious path to conversion! Religiously, this may make sense but politically this could have been handled better ñ sure, by the Hindus too, but more importantly by the Muslims because like it or not, they are the people in the eye of the storm.

Nice essay Vasan but you are pulling a fast one regarding Hinduism and its effects on the Indian subcontinent. Methinks a history lesson sans rosy BJP propaganda is in order.....

One of the dangers of obsessive reading of propaganda in order to counter it: One may lose his or her ability to see the truth when it is staring them in the face because they think everything that does not suit thier idea of what is 'true', is propaganda.

What I am saying may not be 'the universal truth', but it is my opinion. You may read it as you wish. We all interpret ideas based on our life experiences.

One single thing here that I disagree with is the base argument taking Abraham to Canaan as a polytheist, saying he never lived in Ur or was a monotheist. Your supporting statement to that final conclusion is "If Abraham really came from Ur, why would he and his tribe speak Hebrew, a dialect of the Canaanite language? Why would his tribe name themselves 'Isra-el?' after a Canaanite deity?" What is not mentioned is the Biblical stories of how Abraham discounted the gods of his fathers and took to the trail. Of course, as you said, this is only found in the Bible and cannot be found elsewhere, but I find it very plausible that Abraham could have, in his own lifetime, traveled to Canaan and set up his family there, and later in his life worshipped El, and taught his children to do so. In the end, I find that, even though we only have Biblical records to go by on his Ur life, your argument that he had to come from Canaan to be too weak as it does not rest on any real validity. I must say, though, that the rest of the discussion is very interesting, thought-provoking, and educational. Thank you.