Reflection 2 Islamic governance any better?

>> Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Assalam Alaikum

So this was the 2nd paper I wrote last semester. It is comparing the Islamic form of governance with a Buddhist kingdom. Like last time I have left teacher comments present. Much thanks to my fiance Sara for helping me write 4 drafts of this paper. And who will give me even more help and support when I do my master's thesis InshAllah.


Comparing Islamic leaders from different time periods and places, to King Ashoka and other Buddhist figures, we find that theologically the two societies are very different. Buddhism is not theistic at all; in fact, some teachings of Buddhism are against the belief of a God while Islam’s central principle is Tawheed, the oneness of God and His isolation as the only thing to be worshipped and pleased. However even with this fundamental difference, both religions share a similarity in their treatment and tolerance of other faiths and their own. After reading about Buddhism, in particular chapter 14 of Neusner the case of King Ashoka, has made me wonder if is it necessary to have an Islamic form of government or even a theistic centered government to form a coexistent and peaceful society[ml1861] .

Both Buddhist and Muslim families portray themselves of being accepting of diversity. Ashoka’s father and grandfather were from different religious backgrounds. His grandfather became a Jain late in life, and his father was of the Ajivika sect. Many Khaliphs had mothers who were usually from the lands that their fathers laid conquest, specifically the Ottoman Empire where most of the mothers were Armenians but the Ummayyads in Spain also intermarried. Some of the mothers remained with their original faith and others converted to Islam. The two societies are different in that Muslim men were allowed to marry women of other faiths but women were not allowed to marry outside of the faith. However both societies had families, even ruling families, who accepted some form (not all forms) of religious diversity in their homes.

Both societies have an idea that there is no compulsion in religion and everyone has the right to follow any faith. Ashoka believed in honoring other religions. Kristin Scheible writes, “For Ashoka, other faiths have inherent self-worth as well as occupy a crucial role as a mirror to reflect and amplify one’s own faith. “The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others.”” Furthermore in Buddhism other religions were not the result of some evil force [ml1862] but rather other paths to the same destination.[1] Muslims on the other hand, at least the majority of the Khaliphs, believed in respecting other faiths because the Quran says, Do not curse the idols they set up beside Allah, lest they blaspheme and curse Allah out of ignorance.” Also, unlike Ashoka, Muslims believed that other faiths were due to evil forces contaminating the pure word of God[ml1863] . Even with these different views and mindsets towards the other, Islamic societies and Ashoka developed similar institutionalized forms of tolerance. Ashoka’s Rock Edict XII admonished attempts to overtly proselytize and the Kaliphs forbade forced conversion following the prophetic command: there is no compulsion in religion by writing such treaties like the Pact of Umar. These institutionalized forms of tolerance are still put on a pedestal by the present followers of both religions; India has the symbol of the wheel, which signifies many things one of which celebrating the reign of Ashoka, on its flag, and Muslims speak very nostalgically of certain past leaders.

The Ashokan edicts and the Khaliphate either elevated their religion or put limits on other religions. In Edict VII Ashoka announces that he will have officers spreading the Dharma and the Khaliphate allowed other faiths to proselytize to each other but not to Muslims. Both the theist and non-theist religion are very similar in furthering their religions.

Ashoka, like some Kaliphs, also limited followers of divergent views of his own religion. Ashoka had intolerant edicts directed towards the sangha. Disruptive monks and nuns under the Sarnath Pillar Edict are expelled from the anabasasi and forced to wear white robes instead of saffron robes. Kaliphs on the other hand would punish theologians and jurists who disagreed they disagreed with. The kaliph would either make takfeer (claiming that one has done something that makes him an apostate making it legal to kill him) on those he disagreed with, causing the theologians and jurists to change their views, or straight out torture people until they agreed. Ashoka and some Kaliphs were tolerant to others who disagreed with them but not so much to their own people if they disagreed.

Both of these societies, the Kaliphate and Ashoka’s kingdom, were based on very different faiths but ended up being similar. Both the societies are put on a pedestal by the followers of these faiths as evidence of the faith’s greatness. But both Muslims and Buddhists have also acted intolerant in different times in history, for example in some of the Taifa kingdoms, Muslims were intolerant towards Jewish people. Also during a period of the Ottoman Empire, Muslims acted very intolerant by force converting then drafting children into the military, creating the Janissaries. Some may argue the Janissaries went on to live a luxurious life but their parents did not agree with their children’s force conversion and draft. Buddhists also at some points of history acted intolerant and warlike in Lanka due to nationalism discussed in the following chapter in Neusner. The Muslim teaching that the only way to have coexistence and peace is through an Islamic form of government and the belief of one God is challenged by the fact that at times Muslim society acted just as intolerant as others they believed themselves better than, and that those who Muslims believed they were better than, in this case a people who do not even believe in a god, also formed a society similar to the best of Muslim society[ml1864] .

My reflection does not dissuade me from Islam but rather makes me turn more towards it and makes my belief stronger. In Islam we are constantly told to be sincere, and the fact a that non-Muslim can accomplish the same thing as a rightful Muslim ruler as long as he or she is sincere gives credence to that teaching. Furthermore Muslims may call me blasphemous for my claim that Islam is not a requirement. However I believe I uphold Islamic principles. We do not implement an Islamic form of government because it is the only way to achieve an ideal society; rather we do it because we wish to show submission to God[ml1865] . If we wish to implement Islamic law to form an ideal society then the intention is not to please Allah but rather to please ourselves. And Allah will give us what we want in this life, a good society, but not in the next, paradise.

9/10 points: You draw some nice comparisons between Buddhist & Islamic thinking. I’d like to hear more of your personal thoughts on the Ashoka chapter.

[1] Kristin Scheible writes, “Other religions were conceived as more or less effective means to the same end. They were not considered the consequence of evil forces…”

[ml1861]Are you suggesting that the ethics of coexistence and peace are primarily derived from a concept of – or relationship to – God?

[ml1862]Do other traditions (Christianity, Islam, etc) view other traditions as the result of evil?

[ml1863]This answers my question above …

[ml1864]Interesting point. So, what is it, in the end, that makes the cornerstone of a just society?

[ml1865]But, does making an Islamic form of government force this submission on non-Muslims?


Reflections on the Enlightenment

>> Monday, January 9, 2012

So I just finished my first semester of Graduate studies at Hartford Seminary. This was the first paper I wrote. I received an 8.5/10 on this paper. I have added the Professor's comments to show how true professors teach and how academic theological writing should be instead of being extreme polemics. (I am grateful for this grade because it helped me see where I needed to improve.) This paper was a simple reflection paper on one of the readings.


I knew I would disagree with the philosophers and theologians that were going to be mentioned before reading chapter nine. I was pleasantly surprised how Karkkainen approached the subject, not portraying the Enlightenment as a majestic age of reason. After reading this chapter I am surprised that Enlightenment theologians, at least the ones mentioned, were not writing about rejecting religion instead they were trying to prove Christianity was superior to other religions. The reading upheld my firm belief that Enlightenment thinkers were not practicing reason but rather practicing blind dogma and acting like children[MCL1] . They closed their eyes and covered their ears, refusing to listen to the proof of any religion.

Karkkainen dispels the idea of it being an age of reason by mentioning that periods before the Enlightenment, such as the Middle Ages, were also called the “Age of Reason” and great scholastic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas came before the Enlightenment. By doing so, he does not discredit the advances and ideas of past generations rather, he correctly writes that it was the first time reason was exercised independent of church authority and supervision. However, it was not the first time a period was recognized as an age of reason. (p90)

Having properly explained the Enlightenment period and not portraying it as majestic, he goes on to explain the ideas of theologians and philosophers of the period. Personally I would have taken a more hostile approach because of my exclusivist leanings. I commend Karkkainen for only presenting the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers and not let his own opinions seep [MCL2] through which I would have done.

There was a time that I avoided reading Enlightenment era works with the impression they were exclusively about disproving the idea of God and I only used to read works that were polemics against the thinking of the Enlightenment because of this misconception. Having avoided Enlightenment era writing, it certainly was eye opening to read a presentation about the it. [MCL3] Before I was under the impression the Enlightenment was fully secular, however it seems like it was only a move towards secularism and a different flavor of religious superiority thinking. The different flavor of religious superiority was a move towards inclusivist thinking, such as Schleiermarcher, not believing the Christianity was the only way but the best way (Karkkainen, p93) or Troeltsch view that all religions share the divine presence or revelation but other religions cannot be brought closer to Christianity.(Karkkainen, p97) The tools this new process used to look down on other religions were “history”, “common sense” and “reason” instead of using doctrine. By doing so they effectively neutered all religions of any supernatural elements making debates of what is right and what is wrong divorced of any divine guidance and subjugate them to logic, reason[MCL4] , and worst of all human temptation.

Reading about their denial of the supernatural elements in religion and the use of the new tools such as “reason” upheld my firm belief that Enlightenment thinkers were practicing blind dogma and not using reason at all. If they are truly reasonable and open to ideas, why do they ignore the proof[MCL5] that religions bring as if they were children. Denis Diderot’s claim that even if the entire population of Paris told him a dead man had just been resurrected he would not believe it (Karkkainen pg91), shows that Enlightenment thinkers were not trying to be “open minded” or anything of the sorts rather they had their beliefs and would ignore any evidence that ran the contrary. If we were to use reason and history, the fact that we have multiple sources from the earliest periods giving accounts of supernatural happenings, would that not be enough proof? Maybe not enough proof to know exactly which miracle happened or didn’t happen, but enough to know something did happen. But the Enlightenment thinkers stick to the “see it to believe” mentality. If we use this reasoning then we should just ignore all of history. If we have a large number of people giving the same account[MCL6] , all of who were eye witnesses, and have not had enough time to cooperate and make a story up[MCL7] , reason would dictate that there is some truth in what they say. Now if we live many years after the event, we should investigate the claims and see where each claimant’s source is coming from. Meaning we should trace back their claims to the eye witnesses of the event. If we find all the claims are coming from the same eye witness there may be room to be skeptical, but if all the claims trace back to many different eye witnesses then reason would lead us to two options: either there was a global conspiracy going on amongst the people who lived in the past and wanted to fool future generations by claiming they were eye witnesses to supernatural events, or miracles had actually occurred. [MCL8] Which is more likely, a grand hoax that requires impossible logistics or the event actually occurring?

Furthermore ignoring miracles and following people based on them being “ethical teachers” is a step towards relativism [MCL9] which people see as chaos and the absence of divine guidance. Who is to decide what one teaches is ethical? Many practices are considered ethical in one culture’s reasoning and completely abhorrent in another. The only way to know what is truly ethical and truly abhorrent is by divine guidance. To know the source of the divine guidance is through the miracles.

The reading has encouraged me to delve deeper in Enlightenment thinking which is surprising to me because it only upheld long standing beliefs. At the end of the day I am an exclusivist and to disagree with something without fully knowing it, is arrogant[MCL10] . Instead of avoiding it I should learn about it to see why people think in this manner and why it is so attractive if I wish to effectively articulate my objections to this type of thinking.

8.5/10 – This chapter obviously was thought-provoking for you. You do a good job of articulating some of the issues at play in the chapter and are ready to apply them to your own thinking. Be sure to push your own assumptions; hold them up to the same critique you’d want applied to Enlightenment thinking.

[MCL1]Those are strong words.

[MCL2]Objectivity is important in academic research.

[MCL4]Are logic and reason such bad things? Don’t we want our traditions to be logical and reasonable?

[MCL5]What is the proof? How are some of the claims of our traditions “provable”?

[MCL6]But where is this recorded? In a time when there were no newspapers or reporters? If there is only one text that records an event (e.g. the Bible) how do we really know that a large number of people offered the same account?

[MCL7]And, how do we know that this was not the case with texts that were written down hundreds of years ago? Or with texts that were written down decades after the events in question?

[MCL8]I’m not sure these are the only two options.

[MCL9]How so?

[MCL10]Absolutely. It’s important to be able to articulate clearly why you disagree with something and to propose a better scenario.