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.

Social Hierarchies Create A Cycle Of Poverty

Early signs of social class systems can be traced back to the beginning of history. These social hierarchies have shaped the structure of societies for thousands of years and continue to do so. For example, the caste and feudal systems are two influential social systems that millions of people lived with through long stretches of history. Even today, these class systems leave their mark on the way our society is divided into distinct social groups.

            In a basic sense, I find the moral reasoning behind a rigid social system opposed to modern day ideals of equal human rights and opportunity.  Yet I do see traces of a social hierarchy and limited social mobility in our society today. Though our society prides itself on allowing everyone access to education, and on the idea of working hard and achieving success, I believe that there are many individuals who are born into difficult circumstances that they can not necessarily escape from. Some people are caught in a cycle of poverty similar to the untouchables in the caste system. Being raised in a very poor family in the United States is often a setback even before a child has had the ability to make any choices of his or her own.  Yes, many schools offer a high quality education. But many do not, and college is getting more and more expensive. Because of the very high cost of college, a little more than a quarter of Americanxs (about 28 percent) get to go and few Americans are well educated.  The lack of a strong education often makes it more difficult to find a will-paying job.  Many generations of a family may therefore go through the same cycle of poverty.

            The United States is supposed to be different from many other places in the world because it gives people from all backgrounds an opportunity to get ahead based on hard work and merit. In theory, the children of laborers that work some of the toughest jobs in the country can get an education and move up in the socio-economic hierarchy. In reality however, this is difficult to do as a quality education is not always available.  The nation-wide rising cost of education is an impediment to moving up social classes.  I fear that if we continue on this path, much of our society will fall into a cycle of poverty not unlike the untouchables in the caste system. 

Religious Manipulation By The Powerful

For thousands of years, individuals have interpreted religious texts to justify who should hold power in society and who should remain powerless.  For example, monarchs wishing to maintain their authority in medieval times used the divine right of kings to claim that god supported their right to be in power. Individuals have manipulated religion to support their beliefs and interest throughout history.  So, I pose the question, why has religion been so easily manipulated to serve the interests of the powerful? What has stopped the people in lower social classes from challenging the religious backing that powerful individuals have claimed to have?

To address the questions at hand, I believe that it is important to look at one of the main underlying similarities between the individuals that have claimed that their position in society was justified by religion.  What did they all have in common that allowed them to support their beliefs with religious justification? The answer is their education and their ability to read religious texts. Thousands of years ago, most people did not have access to education and consequently were illiterate. They could not claim that they understood religious texts because they had no way of reading them.  This automatically gave the educated people in society the ability to use religious justification for power.  This left the uneducated unable to oppose the social order imposed by the educated. The powerful and educated could then continue the cycle of a divided social class system that deprived lower societal classes of educated. This therefore left these individuals without the ability to question this so-called religious justification because they were never given the education to do so.

An example of this cycle occurred during the years of early Hindu society, called the Vedic Society. During this time period, a social class system known as the caste system arose. It was made up of five different castes, each defining a separate societal class.  At the top were the Brahmins.  These were the priests, teachers, and highly educated scholars.  The second caste consisted of the Kshatriyas, the warriors and royalty.  The third caste was the Vaishyas, the traders.   Next but definitely not least, sat the Shudras, the farmers, service providers, artists, and laborers.  The fifth caste was made up of people that were believed to be “too dirty for casted Hindus.” These people were titled the untouchables.  The untouchables were deprived of many luxuries and rights that casted members were given such as (very intentionally) education.  The untouchables were unable to oppose the rules and religious justifications for laws made by the members of higher castes because they were not educated enough to do so.  They were given the dirtiest and most difficult labor and had no way to refute the belief that there was a religious purpose for being put in the lowest caste. A law in the caste system stated that one could move up a caste level.  Once born into the untouchables, one stayed an untouchable.  Therefore, the offspring of these individuals were treated in the same manor as their parents had been.

In addition to depriving the powerless of an education, the powerful have often promulgated self-benefiting interpretations of religion to maintain distinct social classes. Simply depriving people of education would likely not have completely eliminated the incentive of lower class members to challenge their social status in society. So, throughout history, the powerful have taught the lower social classes that they would be punished or rewarded based on their compliance with the rules of the existing social system.

Once again, an example of the powerful manipulating religion to their advantage is apparent in Hinduism’s caste system.  The members of the highest castes, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, taught members of the lower social classes that if they remained in their caste without challenging their position in society, they would be rewarded by moving up a caste level in the next life.  This was hard to argue with when the alternative was to be born once again into an equally low caste level.  By using this reasoning, the members of higher castes could further keep members of the untouchables from opposing their beliefs about the social order.  Members of the untouchables were frightened to oppose the beliefs of the higher castes in fear that they would not move up a caste in the next life.  This highlights how the powerful and educated people have used religion to keep the uneducated from challenging their social status.

Throughout history, the powerful members of society have used religion as justification for the social status quo. For thousands of years, the powerful have been able to maintain the social hierarchy in society.   By depriving the lower social classes of education and threatening them with divine punishment for disturbing the social structure, the powerful and educated have kept the powerless from demanding an equal society. 

Religion, Cults, Prophets, and Missionaries

A group is determined to be either a cult or a religion based on how the surrounding population views the members and beliefs of that group.   In other words, whether followers of a belief system make up a cult or a religion is determined by the people outside the group looking in on the group’s structure and ideology.

The word cult is generally used derogatorily to refer to a group of people with a belief system that threatens established ideas, and whose leader holds a seemingly dangerous amount of influence over the members. Groups with certain ideologies are often labeled cults because people outside of the group believe that the group’s ideology is destabilizing to society.  People believe that the group’s belief system defies the norms of accepted belief systems, and may cause trouble to existing ideologies and bring chaos to society.  For example, when Christianity was just being established, the Romans looked at the early followers as a cult because their devotion to Jesus threatened loyalty to the Roman government and leadership. 

In addition to being fearful of the belief system, people outside of the cult worry that a cult leader can rule his/her members with a dangerous amount of influence. Leaders of cults are believed to control their members to the point where they position themselves to be as important as the ideology itself.  This is thought to be dangerous because if a cult leader is too powerful, the members of a cult lose their ability to think for themselves.  They begin to follow only what the leader tells them to do.   In a way, the leader has absolute power.

Religion, on the other hand, is thought of as a belief system where no leader or figure is more important than the deity and the ideology overall.  Unlike a cult, religious beliefs are not seen as undermining the norms and laws of society, but are often the basis of them.  For example, the Ten Commandments, a religious code of laws recognized by both Jews and Christians, do not defy law and order in the Judeo-Christian American society, but rather are the backbone for them.  Furthermore, followers of a belief system make up a religion when their beliefs are shared by a larger number of people.  In a way, a necessary condition for a belief system to be considered a religion is if enough members support it and believe in it.

The main difference between cults and religions has to do with how people outside of the group view the structure and belief system of the group. However, I believe that a cult can turn into a religion and a religion can turn into a cult.  If a cult’s belief system gradually spreads and becomes more widely accepted, similarly to how Christianity spread in ancient Rome, it will gradually be looked at as a religion.  As the ratio of believers to non-believers increases, the cult becomes less threatening and dangerous to societal norms.  Yet at the same time, a religion may suffer a decrease in believers and followers.  For instance, if a new religion is beginning to spread in an area, the religions that were previously accepted and followed may become less observed.  This radical change may bring the population to view these shrinking religions not as religions any longer, but rather as cults that defy society’s status quo. 

__ __ __ __

I believe that the difference between a prophet and a missionary is related to the person’s communication with god and the person’s reason for spreading the work of god.

Historically, individuals who have called themselves prophets have been people who preach the direct word of god that they have personally heard from the deity. For example, in Islam, Mohammed is considered a prophet because god speaks directly to him and he relays god’s messages to the rest of the world.   Furthermore, a prophet’s motivation for spreading god’s words is generally based on the idea that it is his or her purpose in life to do so.  The prophet’s responsibility is not to keep a religion alive, or to convert individuals to a certain belief system, but rather to tell others exactly what god wants them to do.  It is a prophet’s duty to help humans live more righteous lives in the eyes of god.

In distinction to a prophet, a missionary does not receive god’s words directly from the source, but rather from religious texts, teachings, or even from the words of a prophet. Therefore, a missionary’s connection to god is more distant than that of a prophet.  In addition, missionaries spread religious beliefs and ideas for the purpose of converting people to their belief system.  Their basic motivation for teaching religious ideas is that it is their duty to expand the number of followers for the good of the religion and the good of the individuals being converted.  In contrast to a prophet who seeks to spread the word of god, a missionary seeks to persuade others about the truth of a specific religion as well as about god’s teachings. 

All in all, the main differences between prophets and missionaries revolve around communication with god and the motivation for spreading god’s word.  Though both types of religious figures work to bring god’s words to a broader public, prophets work to improve humanity and missionaries work to promote a specific religion.