(A good friend Fatih recently posted an interesting piece on Religious Hatred. This post was inspired by it.)
At first blush it all may seem ironic: many of us may have been raised to find solace and peace of mind from religion, while one biggest problem with the greatest religions stem from their teachingsor, at least, our interpretations of them.
Each God-sent religion claims to possess the ultimate Truth. Particularly of Semitic origin, religions carry with them some kind of missionary spirit. Among the pious as well as the not so devout, there has been some kind of religious contestation. Call it a perennial tension, or an inherent paradox. If its hard to swallow as a fact, we should recognize the recurring phenomenon.
We cannot deny religion frequently fails to solve a great many problems. Worse, the inherent problem between, and amongst, divine religions has contributed to our bloodiest mundane problems. The more we recognize this unhappy potential, the more we can avoid religion induced conflicts from recurring.
It follows from this that we are in a pressing need for better understanding, or acceptance, on what religion is--on what it can do, or has done, for the good or the bad of humanity. We need that sort of comprehension with which we know that while lobsters may cause allergy to some people, we can live with the seeming irony and accept that the crustacean, like ourselves, have been created perfectly with the imperfection.
6 comments:
If I understood you correctly, you're basically saying that religion is inherently conflict-inducing or (at the very least) harbors some sort of a perpetual cause for contention and contempt. If this is the case then I'm afraid I have to disagree. Violence and conflict in this world is exceptional rather than the norm. People have lived side by side in peace and harmony for ages--despite the plural nature of humanity. In fact in most cases this state of being is enforced by religious tenets.
In the Christian tradition, we may find articles as the following which condone the good treatment of others:
For instance,
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Similarly in Islam, the values of patience, love and mercy are repeated numerously in the Quran. Chapter 5 (Al Maidah) verses 8 and 9 is just an illustration of this. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself is known for his uprightness and good character, and taught nothing but moral righteousness and piety.
Human beings have the capability to excel in goodness, but not when left to our own devices since we are given to err (by succumbing to our manifold whims and fancy), rather, when our words and deeds are governed by norms. And what can be more perfect than the norms of the Divine? The One who created us in the first place?
The key to living in peace and tranquility is balance and moderation, both central tenets to faith and life. Problems arise only when we fail to observe these principles. And for this reason, I believe that it is in fact the human component that embodies the potential source of conflict and not religious teachings or Divine scriptures. The roots of evil lay within the agent.
Thanks for your comment and great disagreement; would've made a valuable post in itself.
I was basically saying, or meant to say, what you were succintly saying: “It is the human component that embodies the potential source of conflict and not religious teachings or Divine scriptures.”
It’s the teaching of them, or the interpreting of them, that’s been problematic, and this phenomenon has persisted for ages, as has the tension between or amongst religions, e.g the zeal to proselytize. A pair of quotation marks between the phrase “religion induced” in the third para could have helped get my points across more clearly. (All apostrophes in this post were eaten by a fairy since I updated my blogging software.)
In fact, I felt the need to support the message in the post by quoting your lines: “The key to living in peace and tranquility is balance and moderation;” One may then ask: what is the right balance and moderation and who is to say so? One may continue, “Problems arise not only when we fail to observe these principles, but also when we fail to observe them well, but then again to whose standard of wellness?”
I can't speak on behalf of other religious traditions, but in Islam the principle of balance and moderation has always been measured against the way/sunnah of the Beloved of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) in the way understood and operationalized by his noble inheritors, the living scholars of the Sunni path.
The teachings as well as the interpretation of the tenets of Islam have well been Divine. The letters of the law are embodied in the Qur'an whereas its spirit is encompassed in the figure and life of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
Unfortunately in this day and age, despite an increasing "religiosity", some parts of the Muslim community have in fact regressed and done a great disservice to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his teachings. Take the appaling and outrageous violent reactions that have taken place across the Muslim world with respect to the profane cartoons as an instance. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would never have condoned such disgusting and irresponsible behavior. Similarly, the acts so called perpetratod "in the name of Islam" are in fact a complete departure from Islam's very teachings.
This perhaps warrants a separate discussion, but it should nevertheless be known that with regard to events taking place at present in the Muslim world, acts of intolerance and violence spread hand in hand with the advent of a 'modernist' interpretation of Islam in which unqualified individual Muslims take things into their own hands and reinterpret things according to their whims and fancy; known also as the literalist or 'petrodollar Islam' movement.
This new face of "Islamic radicalism" and the violent conflicts ensued is a blatant outcome of snatching the spirit away from the letters of Divine law, where the principles of balance and moderation have been disturbed at an unprecedented extent.
I hope I haven't gone off on a random tangent, but to reiterate, my point is that the question of inter-faith relations is in fact more nuanced than it seems. The existence of tension between and amongst religions is not only an exception but if it is indeed present then it cannot simply be reduced to a mere argument of an inherent proselytizing fervor within each religion, rather it is subjected to a combination of variables, which in the case of Islam can be seen in light of the recent advent of literalism.
It would be interesting to observe how things evolve in other religious traditions.
Thanks for the enlightening comment! I've owed it to myself to be clear with what I understand by Islamic sharia, or the Laws of Allah (Swt). To my limited understanding, there are two views: one is that that sees it as the general tenets of universal characteristics derived from God’s revelations (Al huda) and the Prophet’s sunnahs, the other seeing it as jurisprudence or the laws of fiqh that great Islamic ulema have gathered, which are not identical with the Laws of God; rather, earthly, living scholars’ interpretations on the divine revelations and sunnahs. Nevertheless, I’d like to say I have faith in both.
Notwithstanding, the teaching and interpreting of Islamic sharia by earthlings, including the application and operationalization of the principle of balance and moderation, as you said, may well make them feel divine, except that they are not. For they may err, or simply need time. When they finally come with the ruling, understanding by the ummat is another matter. In addition to this, I maintain that interpretations by modernists cannot be all wrong.
You hit the nail right on the head by mentioning the concerns of regression from, and disservice and misrepresentation of Islam. Such cases are unfortunately commonplace in Indonesia today (eg. Forced eviction of local Ahmadiyah followers in Mataram or that of Lia Aminuddin's in East Jakarta), though neither of these is unique of my country nor in our time. To me they incidents are hardly an exception of today’s age. They must have occurred in the distant past as they sure will recur in future, most likely in novel issues without precedence or reference at instances when (re)thinking or (re)interpreting was, and will be, compelled. In all fairness, we cannot adequately speak of such reactions without mention of the provocative actions. There is great importance to discuss this nowadays, and I just wish I could pursue it.
As you wrote, the question of inter-faith relations is in fact more nuanced than it seems; I can’t agree more. Salam.
Notwithstanding, the teaching and interpreting of Islamic sharia by earthlings, including the application and operationalization of the principle of balance and moderation, as you said, may well make them feel divine, except that they are not. For they may err, or simply need time. When they finally come with the ruling, understanding by the ummat is another matter. In addition to this, I maintain that interpretations by modernists cannot be all wrong.
======================================
Wa alaikumsalam wa rahmatullah
I fully agree, but I believe I must clarify my previous comment on the "Divine-ness" of both teaching and interpretation of Islamic tenets. In this respect I was in fact referring to both the Qur'anic text and the Sunnah; the very words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). For from what I understand, the Prophet peace be upon him, lived the very essence of the Quran and clarified a great deal of Allah Most High's rulings through his actions and deeds.
Regarding the interpretation and the implementation of the Shariah including the principle of balance and moderation, I concur that since the noble scholars qualified to interpret Sacred Texts are human themselves, they are of course given to err. However, nowadays there is a deliberate tendency to obliterate the fact that the four different schools of thought, Shafii, Maliki, Hanafi, Hambali are a dynamic system of thought and each interpretations are not pinned to the positions of the Imams (may Allah be well-pleased with them) themselves. Rather, in the case where an interpretation falls short of applicability or otherwise, the scholars within a particular school of the later years would rectify, which is the case with some positions of Imam Shafii vis-a-vis Imam Nawawi for instance; who are both of the Shafii school of thought. What I'm trying to say is that despite the fact that the scholars are not infallible, there is a strict mechanism in place to rectify errors and the differences of opinion is a mercy from Allah Most High in itself. At least this is my understanding of orthodox Sunni Islam. Please forgive me for any errors. Allah Most High knows best and success and guidance is only through Him alone. Wassalam.
being informed about the strict mechanism was very heartening and i'm most thankful to you. god bless you. wassalam.
Post a Comment