Facts, Myths, Truths, and Religion

Facts, Myths, Truths, and Religion

You can find out about certain truths all by yourself, if you are really smart. Or you can rely on others to do the legwork for you. That means you take the trouble to read what others, presumably smarter than you, who have spent years and decades to research and think about certain truths. 

Everything that rises will converge. That's your own insight. Politics, religion, philosophy, and worldview (Weltanschauung) of a person are all interconnected. And every living human possesses an outlook on life, whether he is aware of that or not, even when he adamantly denies that he is political, religious, philosophical and so on. To be human is to have a certain attitude. We are what we think we are. The following are notes, taken verbatim, from a book written by Reza Aslan on Islam ("No god but God").  Aslan's English is far better than yours. He also has spent a lot of his time to study religion in a formal manner while you only took up the subject of religion in a haphazard manner. Superiority is a matter of relativity and degree and subject-specific. The book is magnificent. Any self-regarding "educated" person should read it so he/she is no longer a victim of ignorance and an easy prey of propaganda from certain quarters in the West. Truth will make us free. By the way, you are not a Muslim. You are an infidel. More precisely, you are a dyed-in the-wool atheist who has a keen interest in religion which in your view, as stated above, is only an integral part of a person's outlook . 

Myth, which originally signified nothing more than stories of the supernatural, has come to be regarded as synonymous with falsehood, when in fact myths are always true. By their very nature, myths inhere here both legitimacy and credibility. Whatever truths they convey have little to do with historical fact. To ask whether Moses actually parted the Red Sea, or whether Jesus truly raised Lazarus from the dead, or whether the word of God indeed poured through the lips of Muhammad, is to ask totally irrelevant questions. The only question that matters with regard to a religion and its mythology is "What do these stories mean?"

Evangelists interpret historical events in order to give structure and meaning to the myths and rituals of their community, provide future generations with a common identity, a common aspiration, a common story. Religion, by definition, is interpretation; and by definition, all interpretations are valid. However, some interpretations are more reasonable than others. And as the Jewish philosopher and mystic Moses Maimonides noted, it is reason, not imagination, which determines what is probable and what is not. 

Muhammad's revolutionary message of moral accountability and social egalitarianism was gradually reinterpreted by his successors into competing ideologies of rigid legalism and uncompromising orthodoxy, which fractured the Muslim community and widened the gap between mainstream, or Sunni, Islam and its two major sectarian movements, Shiism and Sufism. Although sharing a common sacred history, each group strove to develop its own interpretation of scripture, its own ideas on theology and the law, and its own community of faith. And each had different responses to the experience of colonialism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Indeed, that experience forced the entire Muslim community to reconsider the role of faith in modern society. While some Muslims pushed for the creation of an indigenous Islamic Enlightenment by eagerly developing Islamic alternatives to Western secular notions of democracy, others advocated separation from Western cultural ideals in favor of complete "Islamization" of society. With the end of colonialism and the birth of the Islamic state in the twentieth century, these two groups have refined their arguments against the backdrop of the ongoing debate in the Muslim world over the prospect of forming a genuine Islamic democracy. At the center of the debate over Islam and democracy is a far more significant internal struggle over who gets to define the Islamic Reformation that is already under way in most of the Muslim world. 

The reformation of Christianity was a terrifying process, but it was not, as it has so often been presented, a collision between Protestant Reform and Catholic intransigence. Rather, the Christian Reformation was an argument over the future of the faith---a violent, bloody argument that engulfed Europe in devastation and war for more than a century.

Thus far, the Islamic Reformation has proved no different. For most of the Western world, September 11, 2001, signaled the commencement of a worldwide struggle between Islam and the West---the ultimate manifestation of the clash of civilizations. From the Islamic perspective, however, the attacks on New York and Washington were part of an ongoing clash between those Muslims who strive to reconcile their religious values with the realities of the modern world, and those who react to modernism and reform by reverting---sometimes fanatically---to the "fundamentals" of their faith. 

The book ("No god but God") is an argument for reform. There are those will call it apostasy, but that is not troubling. No one speaks for God---not even the prophets (who speak about God). There are those who will call it apology, but that is hardly a bad thing. An apology is a defense, and there is no higher calling than to defend one's faith, especially from ignorance and hate, and thus to help shape the story of that faith. 

M never claimed to have invented a new religion. By his own admission, M's message was an attempt to reform the existing religious beliefs and cultural practices of pre-Islamic Arabia as to bring the God of the News and Christians to the Arab peoples (Koran 42:13). 

M dealt with the demise of the tribal ethic in Mecca. He called for an end to false contracts and the practice of usury that had made slaves of the poor. He spoke of the rights of the rights of the underprivileged and the oppressed, and made the astonishing claim that it was the duty of the rich and powerful to take care of them. 

In 613, three years after the Revelation had begun, M's message underwent a dramatic transformation, one that is best summed up in the twofold profession of faith that would henceforth define both the mission and principles of the movement:
"There is no god but God, and M is God's messenger." From this point forward in M's ministry, the monotheism that had been implicit in the earliest recitations became the dominant theology behind what had thus far been primarily a social message. 

At the time of Islamic expansion after the death of M, religion and the state were one unified entity. Your religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity; it defined your politics, your economics, and your ethics. More than anything else, your religion was your citizenship. Thus, the Holy Roman Empire had its officially sanctioned and legally enforced version of Christianity, just as the Sassanian Empire had its officially sanctioned and legally enforced version of Zoroastrianism. In the Indian subcontinent, Vaisnava Kingdoms (devotees of Vishnu and his incarnations) vied with Saiva kingdoms (devotees of Shiva) for territorial control, while in China, Buddhist rulers fought Taoist rulers for political ascendancy. Throughout every one of these regions, but especially in the Near East, where religion explicitly sanctioned the state, territorial expansion was identical to religious proselytization. Thus, every religion was a "religion of the sword."

The term "holy war" originates not with Islam but with the Christian Crusaders who first used it to give theological legitimacy to what was a battle for land and trade routes. "HW" was not a term used by Muslim conquerors, and it is in no way a proper definition of the word jihad. The word j literally means "a struggle", "a striving", or "a great effort". In its primary religious connotation (sometimes referred to as "the greater jihad"), it means the struggle of the soul to overcome the sinful obstacles that keep a person from God. This is why the word j is nearly always followed in the Quran by the phrase "in the way if a God." However, because Islam considers this inward struggle for holiness and submission to be inseparable from the outward struggle for the welfare of humanity, j has more often been associated with its secondary connotation ("the lesser jihad"): that is, any exertion---military or otherwise---against oppression and tyranny. And while this definition has occasionally been manipulated by militants and extremists to give religious sanction to what are social and political agendas. War, according to the Quran, is either just or unjust, it is never "holy."

Muslim Law, which considers Jews and Christians "protected peoples", neither required not encouraged their conversion to Islam. Pagans and polytheists, however, were given a choice between conversion and death. Islamic law did prohibit Jews and Christians from openly proselytizing their faith in public places. Such prohibitions affected Christians more than they did Jews, who have been historically disinclined toward both proselytizing and public displays of their religious rituals. 

Theological differences Islam has with C and J:

Trinity: Muhammad considered it intolerably heretical innovation created by ignorance and error. "God is one. God is eternal. He has neither begotten anyone, nor is he begotten of anyone" (Korean 112: 1-3)

Religions become institutions when the myths and rituals that once shaped their sacred histories are transformed into authoritative models of orthodoxy (the correct interpretations of myths) and orthopraxy (the correct interpretations of rituals), though one is often emphasized over the other. Christianity may be the supreme example of an "orthodoxic" religion; it is principally one's beliefs---expressed through creed---that make one a Christian. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Judaism, a quintessentially "orthopraxic" religion, where it is principally one's actions---expressed through the Law---that makes one an observant Jew. It is not that beliefs are irrelevant in Judaism, or actions unimportant in Christianity. Rather, it is that of the two religions, Judaism places far greater emphasis on orthopraxic behavior than does Christianity.

Like Judaism, Islam is primarily an orthopraxic religion. However, because the Ulama have tended to regard Islamic practice as informing Islamic theology,  orthopraxy and orthodoxy are intimately bound together in Islam, meaning questions of theology, or kalam, are impossible to separate from questions of law, fiqh. Their ultimate objective was to form strict guidelines that would establish exactly who was and who was not a Muslim. The result of their labors became what is now commonly known as the Five Pillars of Islam, which are meant as a metaphor for Islam. They are a summary of not just what is required to be a member of the Ummah, but also of what it means to be a Muslim. 

Contrary to perception, the Pillars are not oppressive obligations. These are highly pragmatic rituals, in that the believer is responsible only for those tasks that he or she is able to perform. Nor are the Pillars mere perfunctory actions. The single most important factor in the performance of any Muslim ritual is the believer's intention, which must be consciously proclaimed before the ritual can begin. 

The Shariah, called the "core and kernel of Islam" by Joseph Schacht, was developed by the Ulma as the basis for the judgment of all actions in Islam as good or bad, to be rewarded or punished. More specifically, the S recognized five categories of behavior:

1) actions that are obligatory, in that their performance is rewarded and their omission punished; 
2) actions that are meritorious, in that their performance may be rewarded, but their neglect is not punished;
3) actions that are neutral and indifferent;
4) actions that are reprehensible, though not necessarily punished; 
5) actions that are forbidden and punished.

These five categories are designed to demonstrate Islam's over-arching concern with not only forbidding voice, but also actively promoting virtue. 

Sufism: For Sufis, Islam is neither law nor theology, neither creed nor ritual; rather, Islam is merely the means through which the believer can destroy his ego so as to become one with the creator of the heavens and the earth. 

While the annihilation of the ego may be a common goal to all mystical movements, there are a few important differences between S and traditional ideals of mysticism. 

First,there exists in Islam a stringent anti-monasticism. Put simply, Islam is a communal religion. 
Second, the Quran categorically derides celibacy as against the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply."
Third, Islam, like all religions, can claim to point humanity to god, whereas S's goal is to thrust humanity to God.

Islam and religious pluralism:

It is pluralism, not secularism, that defines democracy. A democratic state can be established upon any normative moral framework a long as pluralism remains the source of its legitimacy. The State of Israel is founded upon an exclusivity Jewish moral framework that recognizes all the world's Jews---regardless of their nationality---as citizens of the state. England continues to maintain a national church whose religious head is also the country's sovereign. And yet, like the Untied States, these countries are all considered democracies, not because they are secular but because they are, at least in theory, dedicated to pluralism. 

Islam has had a long commitment to religious pluralism. Muhammad's Recognition of Jews and Christians as protected peoples (dhimmi), his belief in a common divine  text from which all revealed scriptures are derived, and his dream of establishing a single, united Ummah encompassing all three faiths of Abraham were revolutionary ideas in an era in which religion literally created borders between peoples. 

It is true that the Quran does not hold the same respect for polytheistic religions as it does for monotheistic ones. However, this is a consequence of the fact that the Revelation was revealed during a protracted and bloody war with the "polytheistic" Quraysh. The truth is that the Quranic designation of "protracted peoples" was highly flexible. When Islam expanded into Iran and India, both dualist Zoroastrians and certain polytheistic Hindu sects we're designated as dhimmi. 

The current ideology of those Wahhabists who wish to return Islam to some imaginary ideals of original purity must be once and for all abandoned. Islam is and always has been a religion of diversity. Both Shiism and Sufism in all their wonderful manifestations represent trends of thought that have existed from the beginning of Islam, and both find their inspiration in the words and deeds of the Prophet. God may be One, but Islam most definitely is not. 

Any democratic society---Islamic or otherwise---dedicated to the principles of pluralism and human rights must dedicate itself to political secularization. Therein lies the Cruz of the reformist argument. An Islamic democracy is not intended to be a "theo-democracy," but a democratic system founded upon an Islamic moral framework, devoted to preserving Islamic ideals of pluralism and human rights as they were first introduced in Medina, and open to the inevitable process of political secularization. Islam may eschew secularism, but there is nothing about fundamental Islamic values that opposes the process of political secularization. 

Those who argue that a state cannot be considered Islam unless sovereignty rests I the hands of God are in effect arguing sovereignty should rest in the hands of the clergy. Because religion is, by definition, interpretation, sovereignty in a religious state would belong to those with the power to it expert religion. Yet for this very reason an Islamic democracy cannot be a religious state. Otherwise it would be an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Conclusion:

After wading through the origins and evolution of this third Abrahamic faith, established, for all practical purposes and single-handledly, by a genuinely religious-minded, illiterate, but smart and sensitive caravan leader of Arab descent, you came away with a healthy respect for the mixture of tough fair-mindedness and yet rationality and pragmatism the man had. If a human thinks he must believe in God and needs a religion as a crutch to go through life, Islam would be the most sensible answer, compared to its cousin, Christianity, and its parent, Judaism, because while it is still burdened with some unprovable and nonsensical assertions, it is more "rational", more "logical", and more "egalitarian" than the other two Abrahamic faiths. If you cannot bring yourself into believing in God and yet cannot divorce yourself from the crutch of religion, then Buddhism may be the religion that meets your needs. But don't take any words from anybody blindly. You need to investigate all available religions and faiths out there (the info is freely available on the Net) and then chose the one that makes the most sense to you. Alas, most humans don't do that. They just blindly accept whatever religion their parents practiced. Ignorance is not really bliss. It is a sign of slavery. 

To live as a human and to justify one's conduct is to really answer the questions if there's a God and what's the role of religion, if any, in your life. (To put the matter differently, to live authentically as a thinking human, and not as a mindless human animal, is to deal squarely with existential questions: where does the universe come from? is there a God? who am I? why am I here? and where am I going to end up after I die?). Other questions (fame, power, fortune, love, and sex) are of secondary importance. 

Wissai
October 23, 2013.