Is the 'Oneness of God' in Conflict with Tolerance and Pluralism?

In the phrase "there is no god but the one God," is there an inherent moral exclusivity? What differences do monotheistic religions have in terms of tolerance and pluralism compared to polytheistic religions? Why is the idea of monotheism and the oneness of God so central in Islam? Jan Asman, a German Egyptologist, states in his book "Monotheism and the Language of Violence" that "the written language of the sacred texts of monotheistic religions is associated with domination and violence and serves as a tool of power, not of religion." This topic has been discussed with philosopher and religion researcher Soroush Dabagh and former researcher of religion and state studies at Columbia University, Mehdi Jalali Tehrani. We begin our discussion with the essential question of where the roots of monotheism and the oneness of God in monotheistic religions, including Islam, come from. Soroush Dabagh explains that, as some historians have noted, such as in Karen Armstrong's book "A History of God," humanity has historically transitioned from polytheism to monotheism. Among the Abrahamic religions, as we progress, the concept of God becomes more transcendent. The concept of monotheism, which is emphasized in the Islamic idea of "la ilaha illallah," has been debated, and many Muslim beliefs have formed around it compared to the God of the Old Testament, which is more abstract. However, it should also be noted that when we speak of the God of Islam, there are different interpretations among various Muslim sects. The God of jurists can be distinguished from the God of theologians and philosophers, but within the Islamic tradition, the concept of unity and oneness is indeed more pronounced compared to other religions. We heard Mr. Dabagh's explanations. Mr. Jalali Tehrani, as Mr. Dabagh mentioned, there has been an evolutionary process from polytheism to monotheism; do you really consider this an evolution in the sense of progress? Mehdi Jalali Tehrani responds that he does not see this as progress or evolution, and perhaps the term transformation is more suitable for our understanding of God. We must recognize religion within a historical context because religion is formed through historical processes. The religion that first proposed the concept of monotheism is Judaism, and Islam is undoubtedly indebted to Judaism, just as Christianity is. However, in the historical process, Yahweh becomes invisible, moving away from a statue or idol, yet still manifests, for example, in the form of fire in the valley of Sinai. We actually witness three stages of religious practice in human history that have emerged over the last 30,000 years. If we consider the history of Homo erectus, the human who stands on two legs, to be between two million and two and a half million years, until about 30,000 years ago, we see no evidence of beliefs and symbols in the lives of these humans. At that time, we were confronted with animism, where everything is considered divine, from stones to mountains, and this period transitions into polytheism, which then transforms into monotheism. However, none of these stages completely disappear. For example, in the mysticism that Mr. Dabagh refers to, the idea that all objects and beings are alive and recite praises originates from our animistic past, even before polytheism. Or the issue of polytheism; when polytheism is discussed in Islam, why is that? Because the discussion of polytheism still exists. Historically, according to the Torah, we see that they practiced polytheism, meaning they secretly kept idols. There is a story in the Torah about Solomon, who secretly kept idols, which angers God. This indicates a conflict, a violent movement that begins with the formation of Judaism, and you can clearly see this in the story of Abraham, and even the concept of Satan has such an evolution. Before that, we did not have the concept of Satan. The elevation that God undergoes in Islam is matched by the invisibility and transcendence of Satan. Or where does the concept of right and wrong originate? These are all new concepts. When Judaism comes and states that every religion besides mine is false, both Islam and Christianity are indebted to Judaism and completely deny anything other than themselves. This means that these religions can form with a backdrop of violence... Regarding violence, I have specific questions that we will definitely address. I think it would be good to return to Mr. Dabagh at this point. Mr. Dabagh! Mr. Jalali Tehrani believes that there has not been an evolution from polytheism and that this is not a progression. It would be good for you to explain this and then address the image they have created, the monotheism and the idea of oneness that is central in monotheistic religions, especially in Islam, which they have interpreted as being associated with violence and even a form of otherness. What response can you provide? Dabagh: If evolution is equivalent to evolution and implies a value judgment, I did not intend to make a value judgment. Of course, I have my personal stance, but initially, I spoke descriptively, meaning that a transformation has occurred, and we have moved from polytheism to monotheism, and then among the Abrahamic and monotheistic religions, we have transitioned from Judaism to Islam. I see this as a positive epistemological development, and I believe that the more we move from polytheism to monotheism, the more the content of truth in these claims increases. Now, whether someone calls it evolution or not is up to them. I speak of transformation and development, but a transformation that adds to its content of truth. He has also used the term construction in several places. This is from a constructivist perspective. That is, someone who believes that the transcendent has no counterpart in the external world... Well, Mr. Dabagh, I will ask you a question here. You say that there has been progress in the shift from polytheism to monotheism and that there is a view that in polytheism, there is also an inherent plurality and that a society with a polytheistic religion is a more pluralistic society. Since you say that the movement towards monotheism has been progress, could you explain your views on this topic as well? Dabagh: As far as our historical experience shows, I believe there is a necessary and undeniable causal relationship between the fact that we have faced more monism in monotheistic societies and less pluralism compared to polytheistic societies; I do not observe such a close relationship. I think historical evidence supports this issue. That is, these are temporary and possible relationships, not necessary ones. One can imagine or historically find a society that has been monotheistic and has engaged in violence compared to polytheistic societies, and on the other hand, one can find societies among monotheistic religions that have not experienced violence or have experienced little violence. The discussion of violence is, in fact, a complex and multifaceted issue, and as I understand it, it cannot be reduced to merely an abstract idea, whether it is monotheistic or polytheistic. This idea is one among others. If a reduction occurs here, I believe it is a fallacy because many factors involved in the story of violence are not of a theological nature. Without intending to judge the tumultuous situation in the Middle East, I want to say that in addition to the element of being Muslim, environmental, climatic, and economic factors are also at play, just as they are in Christianity and Buddhism. You know that religious fundamentalism, in the sense that has emerged in the last four decades, initially took shape in Buddhism. Jalali Tehrani: In general, when we hear this term reductionism, there is usually a mindset behind it that we want to complicate phenomena to deprive ourselves of the possibility of understanding them and finding solutions. However, for any observation and scientific theory, you must actually apply what is mistakenly referred to as reductionism to identify necessary factors and set aside other factors to reach a more accurate understanding. For example, in a society where fascism is in power, in Italy or Germany before World War II, you can say that yes, the violence that emerged there had economic, social, and various other backgrounds, and therefore you can remove the blame or part of the blame from the teachings of fascism. We see the same situation in relation to religions. Based on the ethics we recognize today, which respects pluralism and at least recognizes the beliefs of others, even if they oppose us, we may not respect the beliefs of others, but we at least recognize the right to believe. Well, this is fundamentally in conflict with the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and the actions of the Prophet of Islam. By what right did the Prophet of Islam insult the beliefs of others in Mecca and break their gods? Why did Abraham, in the legend, reportedly do the same? Why did he interfere with the beliefs of others? This directly relates to monotheism and is based on the belief that you consider yourself right and others false. As I mentioned in the previous question, the concept of right and wrong did not exist in polytheistic religions. Look at the Pantheons. Look at the Pantheon of Rome, which is 2500 years old, and look at the Pantheon of the Kaaba, which is 1500 years old. We do not know how long it existed before that. Various gods existed side by side in the Pantheons and coexisted without any conflict arising between beliefs. Tribes did not fight each other based on their beliefs. All this violent legacy, which has created a large part of our wars, stems from the monotheistic religion and the denial of other beliefs. Mr. Dabagh, we return to you. Mr. Jalali Tehrani's argument is that monotheistic religion creates right and wrong, and there is a God who declares what is right and what is wrong, and he believes that in polytheistic religions, such right and wrong do not exist, or the gods exist alongside each other, and there is no central idea that commands; there are multiple commands. As a result, plurality may exist in society and among beliefs. Do you have a response to these points? Dabagh: Pluralism and polytheism or polytheism are two separate concepts. There is no contradiction in facing monotheism and pluralism. The way the question is posed suggests that there is a relationship of identity or a very close relationship between polytheism and pluralism and between monotheism and monism. No! Neither historical experience shows this nor can it be logically argued. In our mystical heritage in Islam, which has a long history, we can find that they were pluralists and tolerant. Mysticism differs from religion... Dabagh: No, mysticism does not differ from religion. Religion historically has different manifestations. One narrative is that of mysticism. For this reason, we face a plurality that cannot be imposed on unity within the heritage of a religion. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a close relationship between monotheism and monism. Many of our mystics have been tolerant. Philosophers have been the same. Look at Sheikh Abolhassan Kharaqani. What is written on the forehead of his tomb? "Whoever enters this house, feed them and do not ask about their faith, for the one who is valued before God is valued before Abolhassan for bread." This is a pluralistic view. Another point regarding violence: the error here is a temporal error. The understanding we have today of violence is different from the understanding of violence centuries ago. Violence is not a concept like stone and door and throne and wall. It is a socially constructed concept, and the components and elements of socially constructed concepts change from era to era. When we say reduction, it does not mean that we do not talk about a component. Rather, it means that we should look at a multifaceted issue. All social phenomena are subject to this multidimensional analysis because the human realm is complex. For more than several thousand years, humanity has entered the era of monotheism, and polytheism has completely disappeared from the world. What benefit is there in discussing these matters, assuming - I do not agree with his analysis of how Islam was formed - that we engage in these discussions? Before Islam, go to Christianity, go to Judaism. They have a longer history. Go tell Christians to abandon Christianity. Is that possible? Tell all Muslims to abandon Islam. We must engage in discussions that lead to results, and achieving results begins with moving towards pluralism in a monotheistic society that now dominates the world.