The Balance of the "Do" vs. "Do Not" Philosophies

For thousands of years, religion was primarily used as a set of codes that instructed people on what not to do.  Religion guided the lives of followers, by setting limits and boundaries, with the intention of keeping people from behaving immorally. For example, the Ten Commandments, a code of laws followed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are mostly made up of what not to do. Followers cannot murder, steal, or be jealous of a neighbor.   This is an example of a “do not” philosophy of religion.  For most of history, religion told followers what not to do, rather than what they should do. 

It was not until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that individuals began to believe in a “do” philosophy of religion.   The new idea was revolutionary.  Rather than be subjected to a structure defined by limits, followers were encouraged to look to religion for guidance on the actions they should take in their lives. This new perspective was based on the idea that religious followers should live their lives abiding by their religions’ rules and by making changes in their world. These changes were to reflect their religious values and strengthen their religion. Every religious follower had the responsibility to promote and affirm their religion in their society. 

This perspective inspired a range of religious people to throw themselves into working for change in society. Mahatma Gandhi was one of them. He felt that it was his religious responsibility to reform the social and political systems in India.  He believed that as a follower of Hinduism, it was his purpose to help the less powerful and less represented people in his society.

However, not all believers of the “do” philosophy have taken such noble action. Violent jihadist groups like Al Qaeda also follow a “do” philosophy of religion. They too have decided that it is their religious responsibility to support less represented and less powerful groups, although they do so in a violent way. They carry out fatal terrorist attacks on “western cultures” because they believe that they must fight for their religion.  This is an example of a group of individuals who are influenced by this “do” philosophy to take radical action that they believe is for the better of their religion and for the world. 

This leaves the question, if the “do not” philosophy does not encourage social justice, but the “do” philosophy can lead to mass violence, what is the most advantageous philosophy for people to live their lives by? I believe that people need to live a life where these two philosophies are balanced.  It is important to have a moral code that restricts certain behavior including murder, but it is also important to have the motivation to make a positive change for the world and for one’s religion. 

The Role of Religion in Violent and Non-Violent Reform

In the course of history, individuals have often used religion to justify violent action in order to accomplish their goals and interests.  In other cases, individuals have used religion to justify non-violent methods for pursuing their goals and interests.  I believe that it is important to examine the effects of these two conflicting means of achieving goals in order to understand whether violent or non-violent action is more effective in accomplishing a goal. In the larger scheme of things, which of the two philosophies is a more effective way for religiously-motivated people to achieve their purposes.

For thousands of years, leaders and powerful individuals have called on interpretations of religious teachings to provide an excuse for violence. One example of this kind of leader was Pope Urban. In 1095, Pope Urban declared that it was every Christian’s responsibility to participate in the Crusades against Islam for the good of the religion and its followers.  Urban “made it mandatory for all Christians to fight for this as if their lives’ depended upon it.” He used his religion to justify violent action against the people that he believed to be the enemy of Christianity and to justify sending thousands of people to a war that many would die in. He waged war on Islam, promising that the crusaders would be rewarded for all eternity (based on his claim to know how god would reward).

Though the Christian zeal to conquer Muslims thrived during Pope Urban’s lifetime, the fury that Christians had had towards Islam eventually abated.  Crusaders realized that their attempts to conquer the Holy Land would not be successful.  By around the 13^th century, there was no longer a desire to fight in these wars. Pope Urban’s hope of conquering the Muslim religion and strengthening Christianity ultimately failed and all of the violent wars had accomplished almost nothing.  Jerusalem remained in Muslim control and thousands of Christian Crusaders had died.

In contrast, leaders and activists throughout history have also utilized religion to motivate their non-violent methods of achieving goals. In other words, religion has served as a guideline for how leaders should go about pursuing their objectives.  In particular, members of society who have experienced exclusion or injustice have called upon religiously-based non-violent methods of achieving social equality and political representation.  For example, in the 1930’s, Mahatma Gandhi promoted non-violent protests and opposition to leadership, first in South Africa and later in India, because he felt that the poor were not treated fairly in society and were not represented well by the governing body. His philosophy of non-violence derived from his interpretation of Hinduism.  He understood that social-activism was his responsibility as a Hindu and as a member of Indian society. Gandhi led hunger strikes and peaceful protests, which resulted in multiple arrests.  However, his efforts to bring the poor and unrepresented Indians a more equal society succeeded in the end.  One of Gandhi’s most significant accomplishments was his role in freeing India from British colonization.  Gandhi was able to use non-violence to bring social equality to the powerless in India.

So, I pose the question, can non-violent action can be as revolutionary as violent action? In other words, can people accomplish the same or more for their cause by using non-violent action as they can by using violence? 

Clearly, the answer is not black or white. Neither violent action nor non-violent action can guarantee that an individual will achieve his or her goal.  Non-violent methods of accomplishing goals may have worked for some leaders during a certain era, but did not work for other leaders in a different time period.  Even after Mahatma Gandhi used peaceful protests against the British and demonstrated the need for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Hindus, there was and is still violence in the Indian subcontinent. Even after Martin Luther King Jr. peacefully worked to help African Americans overcome racism and inequality that they had faced for centuries, there was and is still racism in America.  But the track record for leaders who used violent methods of accomplishing their goals is not perfect either.  Pope Urban sent out armies of Christians to capture Jerusalem and to destroy the Muslim religion, but after thousands of deaths, neither of these objectives was reached.  Perhaps what is most interesting is that religion can be called in to justify either method of action.  When people want to change the world, religion can be used as a justification for both violent and non-violent methods of action.

Threats to Religion

At the height of its expansion, Christianity faced multiple political and theological threats.  For example, the spread of Islam from the 7^th to 11^th centuries not only impeded on the ability for Christians to conquer land south of Europe, but also threatened Christian ideology.  By the same token, heretical “witches” were a threat to Christian theology because satanic manifestations on earth were the enemy of god.  In order for Christianity to maintain its political power and its existence, Christians needed to develop ways to combat these challenges to their authority.

            As Islam quickly spread west through North Africa, east to India and north to France, Pope Urban II realized that he had to find a way to reestablish Christianity’s dominance by conquering land and slowing the spread of Islam.  “In 1095, Pope Urban II declared the need for a ‘Crusade’ against the advancing Muslims.”  It was every Christian’s duty to take up arms against Islam and fight for Christianity.  This decision was very much a political strategy that the Pope chose in order to combat the rising threat of Islam.  The Pope felt that this act of aggression was justified to stop Islam from conquering more land and spreading its ideology.

            Centuries later, Pope Innocent the VIII felt that Christianity was faced with more of a theological than political threat.  In the late 15^th century, the fear of witchcraft began to spread among Christians.  Manifestations of the devil were thought to be living on earth, and they had to be exterminated if the idea that God was the most powerful force universe was to persist. In 1486, Pope Innocent encouraged members of the church to compile the Malleus Maleficarum, a guide to finding and exterminating witches. The Malleus Maleficarum laid out a systematic approach to holding trials for “witches” by torturing them into confessing that they worshiped the devil. The steps that needed to be taken were described as gruesome and inhumane, but were religiously justifiable.  In the end, Christians had to do whatever necessary to rid the world of Christianity’s enemies.

            What I find most interesting is that in both cases, the powerful and educated members of Christianity were the ones in position to declare which actions would be beneficial to Christianity. They gave the responsibility of carrying out these highly violent and seemingly unreligious acts to the less powerful because these people were not able to argue otherwise.  These are examples of decisions that individuals made in order for them to maintain power, even if these decisions seemed to contradict the values of the religions they represented.

            Throughout history, Christianity has faced political and theological threats and has found ways to combat them.  For example, the leaders of Christianity declared the need for Crusades and the implementation of “witch” trials to fight these threats. The overarching theme between these two instances is the absolute authority of the religious leadership that allowed them to make destructive and fatal decisions in order to maintain power.

A Possibility of Coexistance

This week, we read a number of historical accounts of events that occurred during the Crusades, and how they reflect biases based on the authors’ religions. Most accounts had either blatant or subtle biases towards Christianity or Islam, while criticizing the other religions.  Depending on their affiliation, the authors all seemed to have chosen their opinions on which religion should be dominant, and their writing reflected these ideas.  Yet, one historian seemed to promote a different objective. I believe that this historian’s view on the Crusades and the general relationship between Christianity and Islam represented an idea that the world was not yet ready to embrace.  He may have been attempting to introduce his ideas to future readers.

            William of Tyre was born in the twelfth century in Jerusalem and was a well-known chronicler and archbishop during roughly the second Crusade.  Though he held a position in the Christian church, his accounts of events are considered to be largely unbiased by historians today.  Unlike other Christian or Muslim chroniclers, I believe that William of Tyre tried to promote the idea of a society where Christians and Muslims could coexist.

In his piece titled, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, William of Tyre described an instance when Muslims persecuted Christians because the Muslims believed that the Christians had disgraced their temple.  Eventually, one brave Christian man gave up his life to save his people from death.  On the surface, this story seems to be an effort to prove the righteousness of Christians and the potential destructiveness of Muslims. 

However, I find it interesting that previous to the incident described, Christians and Muslims seemed to be coexisting in a city without any conflicts. The event the William of Tyre described disrupted society. It caused a conflict between Christians and Muslims that could have only been significant enough to record if there had not been tension between the two religions beforehand.

 So what does this mean? I believe that the author was trying to show that there was potential for Christianity and Islam to coexist without conflict and tension.  The two religions were living together (presumably) peacefully before the event had occurred.  I interpret this as the author’s opinion on the possibility for Christians and Muslims to live together. Rather than Christianity or Islam vanquishing each other, the two religions may be able to live in peace.

            William of Tyre probably had many reasons not to promote the possibility of coexistence between religions during his lifetime. The first reason for hiding this idea was that during the Crusades, it was probable that not many people would have supported his ideas.  The clash between Christians and Muslims reflected a belief that Christians should not exist side by side with Muslims, but rather that Christians should emerge victorious in battle.  A second reason that William of Tyre may not have wanted to speak openly of this idea was that he was an Archbishop, a religious figure in the Church.  For him to suggest that his religion should try to live in peace with the Muslims may have jeopardized his position in the hierarchy.  The last reason that this might have been a difficult idea to communicate is that during the time period that this piece was written, most people were illiterate.  It would have been hard for him to spread his ideas in writing if hardly anyone could read them.

Therefore, I believe that William of Tyre may have been attempting to promote a society where Christians and Muslims could live together in the future. By showing the disruption in society caused by the desecration of the Muslim temple, William of Tyre subtly pointed to the possibility of coexistence between the two religions. Because this idea would most likely have not been supported during his lifetime, he concealed it within his writing. This man’s goal may not have been influence the individuals during this era, but rather to spread his ideas to future generations.

How to Create Religious Coexistence

This week, one of the readings in our history text explained that after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., the once unified and growing Islamic religion broke into groups with conflicting belief systems.  Without Muhammad, the leader who was known for the ability to resolve any dispute, could lead his Arabian army into battle, and teach god’s words to humanity, Islam became a less unified and communal religion.  What does this show about Islam and religions in general?

            After Muhammad’s death, conflicts arose over power, interpretations of Islamic beliefs, and views on the role of Islam in everyday society.  For example, the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims resulted mainly from differences in opinion about who were the legitimate Muslim leaders.  The Sunnis supported the caliphs, while the Shiites thought the leadership should come from the imams, the direct descendents of Muhammad.  This political division evolved into a theological division because Sunnis believed that political leaders did not serve the same purpose as religious leaders, and Shiites believed that the imams were both political and religious leaders. This conflict has lead to the creation of new empires and civil wars between Muslims. Why did this problem continue to grow? There was no one to resolve it.

I have come to believe that the without a unifying leader, religions cannot fulfill their full potential to connect millions of people together under a common belief system. The powerful ability of a religion to create peace and community cannot be harnessed without a leader to bond followers together. During his lifetime, Muhammad was more than just a spiritual leader.  He was able to bring competing tribes together over a belief system.  He was able to settle violent disputes over who should hold local power. His role in Islam was more than spreading god’s word; it was to unify the Arabian people of different backgrounds and origins into an empire that shared a common belief system.

            Though one unifying religious leader may sound like the answer to both intra-religious and inter-religious conflicts, I believe that these major Islamic divisions are too far apart in beliefs values and traditions today to be brought back together under a leader. At this point, it is not up to one leader to unify these sects.  Rather, it is up to the members of these religions to recognize the benefits of living according to ideals of peace and respect. There needs to be a collective Muslim effort to promote tolerance, acceptance, and coexistence between all Muslims, Sunni or Shiite.  With this sense of respect, not only will different divisions within a particular religion interact more civilly, but we may move a step closer to achieving worldwide religious tolerance.  

            As Islam emerged, it depended on a unifying leader to bring individuals with diverse backgrounds and traditions together and to create a powerful religious community.  Today, as the world faces conflicts within and between religions, I believe that acceptance can only be accomplished collectively by individuals of different faiths spreading the importance of religious coexistence.

America's Educational Oversight

This week in history class, we were each asked to compile a list of well-known historical philosophers, scientists, astronauts, doctors, and great thinkers.  We each had around a minute to put our lists together and then we circled around the room to share our ideas.  As we took turns reading from our lists, a few names came up most frequently such as Socrates, Plato, and Galileo.

At the beginning of this process, I had no idea how this activity was at all related to our current unit in class, Islam. However, as we neared the end of our circle, I realized what the point of this activity may have been. We had shared around twenty-five names, but not one of the people mentioned in our discussion was a Muslim. Despite the video that we had just watched, stating that some of history’s brightest and most influential people have been Muslims, not one Muslim came to mind when we shared our lists of important historical figures. The activity made the point: what does this say about our education system? Even further, what does this show about our society? What changes should be made to the way we learn about history?

            Clearly, our education system is biased towards Western European history and ideas.  Socrates, Plato, and Galileo were all European thinkers. This doesn’t mean that our class actually believes that Islamic thinkers are less interesting. It rather shows that we have never been taught about famous Islamic thinkers, or if we have been, their religious background was never emphasized.  In my twelve years of attending school, I have never focused on Islamic history and culture. I now see that this is problematic. Islamic thinkers contributed to major achievements in philosophy, math, science, and literature. They also influenced many of the great Western thinkers that we know so much about. By not being exposed to Islamic history, we have been kept from learning about some of the greatest scholars of all time.           

This exercise has also made me think more about our society’s view on Islam in general.  It seems to me that not many non-Muslims in America can say they understand Islamic ideas and philosophy.  When I hear people talk about Islam, I get the impression that that many people are fearful of the religion. Muslims who have lived here for their whole lives are sometimes treated as outsiders. Many Americans associate the actions of radical Islamist groups with all Muslims.  This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Islam in America. Our lack of understanding may not sound like such a horrible thing, but the simple shortage of knowledge about Islam in America leads to racism and distrust of the most populous religion in the world.

Though it seems as if these problems have their roots deep in society, I believe that they could be avoided in the future if our education system spent more time teaching about Islamic beliefs and history.  Educating kids about Islam would likely lead to a greater acceptance of Muslims here at home and in the rest of the world.  If American society could appreciate the history of Islam, as well as the philosophical, scientific, and other achievements of Islamic thinkers, I believe that our society could be a more accepting home for everyone.

Islam in Southeast Asia: An Appealing Social Message

From 632-750 C.E., following Muhammad’s death, Islam was able to spread throughout Southeast Asia until it was a dominant religion in the area.  Why was Islam able to flourish across Southeast Asia, a territory already rich in religious culture, in a relatively short amount of time? The first main reason is straightforward, military conquests. The second answer to this question gives some insight into which characteristic of Islam was most appealing to followers during the time period. I believe that Islam offered the promise of egalitarian societies, which other religions lacked, and therefore attracted followers.

The first reason for the spread of Islam in South Asia, military conquest, was possible because of geographic proximity. From the 7^th to 8^th centuries, Islam expanded from present day Saudi Arabia to Egypt and eastward to the Sasanian Empire (present day Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan). Muslims promoted their beliefs in these newly claimed areas. Under a central command, the Muslim empire could conquer a vast amount of land because it could “mobilize the military potential of the entire Arab population.” Overtime, many Hindus and Buddhists in northern India chose to convert to Islam, the religion of their conquerors. With battles won against the Byzantine and Sasanian Empire, Islam became a dominant religion in the course of around a century.

Yet I would argue that the idea of shared geography is not enough to convert people whose families have followed certain beliefs for decades. There had to be something especially attractive about Islamic values or beliefs that gave individuals the incentive to join the religion.   This incentive was Islam’s promotion of an egalitarian society. Hinduism and Buddhism, two dominant religions in South Asia at the time, were not structured with the same sense of equality between all individuals like Islam was. Hindus in India were organized in a social hierarchy called the caste system.  The individuals lowest on the caste system were never given an opportunity to rise out of the poverty and hardship that they were born into. Therefore, the idea of an egalitarian society was especially appealing. Even before their military conquests, Muslim merchants and traders were able to convert local Hindus in Southeast Asia because Islam promoted an equal society. At the time, an equal society was an attractive idea to those who had no hope for material improvement. 

Similarly to the conversion of Hindus, Buddhists began converting to Islam in large numbers in around 1174 C.E. The same significant reason for these conversions was the desire to live in an equal society rather than in a culture where monks were benefiting from Buddhism more than everyone else. At the time, monks were profiting from life in the monasteries. Islamic ideals of an equal society were attractive to Buddhists who were fed up with the monks’ power.

Islamic ideas and beliefs spread throughout South Asia in a short amount of time due to the Muslim conquer of land as well as the appealing Islamic value of an equal society.  This suggests that the spread of religion can often depend on an appealing social message. Many Buddhists and Hindus ended up converting to Islam because Islam gave them the opportunity to live in an environment where they could be content with their position in society.