There are two kinds of people, right? That’s how many analyses begin.
Here is one that I humbly offer, with little optimism that sufficient numbers of people will have the courage to take it to heart.
What is the opposite of Islam?
Most Americans would say that the answer is “Christianity.” This simple misconception, though, is the beginning of all kinds of mischief. I would submit that the opposite of Islam (and also the opposite of Christianity) is freethinking. In my view, Christianity and Islam both involve the refusal to deeply question one’s own motives, instincts and mental vulnerabilities.
The convoluted doctrines of these religions (and all religions and many political doctrines) serve as social truths only, not literal truths. In my view, religions serves only as “flags” around which people gather to do what they do, for good or for evil. Individuals following these religions do plenty of both. Knitted out of ambiguous platitudes, oxymorons and tall tales, such flags need not be literally true to serve well as a situs for social cohesion. The components of religions need not be literially true to be important
The “opposite” of fundamentalist Islam, then, it’s “solution,” is not Christianity, certainly not fundamentalist Christianity. That is my perspective and my faith. In fact, in the modern world, a rampant version of any type of fundamentalism is the “opposite” of another only in that it tends to function as to provoke an “equal and opposite” reaction: another version of fundamentalism. The more any one of these religions gains adherents and tries to take over, the more another version of fundamentalism grows in strength to resist. It’s not a matter of whether one of these versions of fundamentalism is literally “true,” then.
The literal truth of these religions (e.g., whether a virgin can have a baby) can never be proven to willing and patient objective outsiders. Attempts at such proofs generally proceed from earnest invocations, to in your face earnestness to yelling with clentched holy books to shooting bullets with clentched holy books. Intellectual positions need not ignite fires, not inevitably. Outside of religious thinking, though, it’s common. Intellectual explorations need not involve antagonism or aggression. A case in point: How many wars have been started by agnostics?
Hasn’t more deep learning resulted from good questions than from beating people over the heads with oxymorons? Instead of attaking each other with holy books, wouldn’t it be utterly refreshing were allreligious believer to base their actions on humility, skepticism, self-critical thought and unbounded curiosity? Why not deep breaths, intellectual courage and empathy, instead of bullets? These things are the opposites of fundmentalisms of all stripes.
I have been away from home for the past week, without much access to media or the Internet. This has been good for me, I believe. Whenever I do get a glimpse of the news it seems, more than ever, to be less and less useful to think in terms of “us versus them,” and more and more senseless.
I offer this test, then (what is the opposite of Islam) as a litmus test for whether one is too entrenched to see the big picture. When one is too close to all the antagonism or too involved in either of these religions, one simply cannot see the numerous things all versions of fundamentalism hold in common, especially the unwillingness to follow evidence where it leads.
The true opposite of both Islam and Christianity, then, is critical thinking melded with empathy. Those who see this truth today, seem to be a dying breed–dying in the crossfire.