The Science of Religion

In The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge by Abdul-Karim Soroush, an idea that I can identify with is given about what people call religious knowledge. First, is that it is not knowledge, per se. I agree with Soroush that divine scripture is indeed divine, but the meaning we humans derive from the words given to us is completely human, which means that it too (like humans) can be full of error.

Because I have a Bachelors of Science in Biology, I am quite familiar with scientific inquiry, methodology, and theories. I am aware that in science, nothing can be proved; only disproved. Everything else is a theory until it is generally accepted and holds up against criticism and experiments to disprove. If a theory holds up, it is considered a law (as in a law of nature), but even laws can be disproved. It is no different with the study of religion. Proof may exist, but we will have to die to find it (perhaps repeatedly if reincarnation is true).

Soroush also explains how every interpretation of religion begins with preconceived notions and assumptions. From personal experiences to the societal whole, our perceptions are biased. As he explains, just asking the question biases the answer. Again, it is the same for science and, I would add, statistics. Asking the question is great, but often not all the variables are considered. So what gets missed? Perhaps we will never know. Perhaps someone else will consider those variables and come up with their own interpretation.

When I consider what I have learned in my religious studies, about the vast array of ideas and beliefs, I can’t help but see Soroush’s points about religious “knowledge”. That to me does not create a problem with faith, as his critics may see it. I think that acknowledging our human shortcomings can only help move us forward, because how else can we grow without knowing where we fail? You can’t fix what you don’t believe is broken. If anyone thinks we humans are perfect, then why would we need God? Perfection is the goal, but we haven’t met it yet. If we had, our world would be a much better place: a garden with lush rivers flowing underneath.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge by Abdul-Karim Soroush for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

Democracy, not Theocracy

Many Muslims believe that both their personal and public lives should be governed by Islam. That is, that they believe that a theocratic system, by which laws are governed by shari’a, is the only government that is allowed or worthy. However, even secular democratic government may not only be allowed, but in line with shari’a.

The Prophet Muhammad’s message was for spiritual purposes and because of whom he was, he was a leader of the people, much as Moses was in his time. He may have seemed like a king, but there was no kingdom established. He left neither a successor nor instructions for future governance.  This not only allowed for the people to create their own form of government, but necessitated it. Thus, the door was left open to the possibility of even a secular and/or democratic government. What was required is that the system be just, as that concept was certainly Islamic.

In addition to justice, other concepts that were of great importance to include in whatever government was to be set up were: social cooperation and mutual assistance; establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions. Democracy offers a great opportunity for promoting these ideals, as they naturally are co-aligned. A constitutional democracy further promotes and protects these ideals by setting to law some basic moral standards that hold both the rulers and the citizens equally accountable.

It is necessary for Muslims to be aware that although shari’a (as it literally means) is infallible, as Allah is infallible, humans are not. As such, the human interpretation of the Qur’an is subject to human experience and error. Any law written with Islamic intentions would still not reach the level of shari’a; rather, it would be fiqh, having the potential the potential to be in error. It is for this reason that consensus, or shura is such an important aspect to Islamic law, as what is best for the people is usually best determined by the people.

If we lived in a perfect world and if we were able to understand God’s word perfectly, then we would not need laws. In such an imperfect existence, laws provide some level of protections to human rights – some justice. Laws given in a constitutional democracy might be perhaps, a best-case scenario for upholding Islamic ideals.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to pages 3-46 of Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

The House that Christ Built

A comparative look at the Gospels of Mark and Thomas

Originally written on 4/19/12 for my Birth of Christianity class

 

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Mark

After reading both the gospels of Mark and Thomas with fresh eyes, I am struck with the idea that one is like timber available for building and the other is like a finished structure, ready for tenants.  The gospel of Thomas (hereafter: Thomas) is simply a list of sayings attributed to the person in history named Jesus. It is referred to as his secret teachings, although the secrets are not given away freely, as many of the sayings can be difficult to understand (ex: Thom 10, 17, 19, and especially 42). The gospel of Mark (hereafter: Mark), on the other hand, is a narrative – a story. It has a beginning, middle and, as most stories do, builds to a crescendo before coming to an end. There are no real secrets here, as what Jesus says is often explained to his disciples (Mk 4:14-20). 

When walking through the lumber yard of Thomas, the reader is not given a map, as no map would make sense. There is no seeming order to Jesus’ sayings and sometimes certain sayings even seem to be repeated, although with small variations (ex: Thom 2 and 94; 55 and 101). Although there is no apparent order to the list, one could sort the sayings into themes, the names by which might depend on the reader and his or her interpretations of the sayings.

It is the roughness of Thomas, the crude way it is written as only a list, that I think would have appealed to the first followers of Jesus. It allowed for variations of opinions, for interpretations by the self. Each person would have the same opportunity to find in it those things which resonated within.

Several themes that I noted within the gospel of Thomas may have found resonance with the early Christians. These include the search for knowledge or wisdom, the oneness of all life, the necessity to be like a child to experience the kingdom of God, what God’s imperial rule is like and simple rules to live within humanity’s communities. These themes may have been easily acceptable to any of the followers of Jesus that were familiar with the likes of Socrates, who also was a proponent seeking wisdom and of the concept of “Know thyself” (Thom 2, 3, 67, 92, 94).

Thomas may have also appealed as seeming more authentic, as if the author was writing the sayings down best as he could remember, without tarnishing anything with embellishments. At the same time, it could have put off those that found the list too confusing and difficult to understand, especially with the implication of these being secret teachings; when the reader didn’t understand, it would be too easy for him to disregard it as make-believe. For these people, Mark would be much easier to understand, thus easier to accept as authentic.

Tract Housing

As mentioned before, Mark is much more than a list of sayings, although when walking through the halls of the structure, pieces of Thomas seem to be peeking out through the paint here and there (ex: Mk  2:20, 2:21-22, 6:4-5, 12:17, 12:31,  and Thom 104, 47, 31, 100, 25 respectively). Although the reader can tell that the authors of Mark and Thomas visited the same lumberyard, it is just as evident that Mark’s author either missed much of the materials available, or only sought certain pieces for his structure. Perhaps Mark’s author had an agenda: to tell a story about Jesus from the perspective that he understood. If that was the case, then he would have selected those pieces that made sense to him and then added to them some structure so that other readers would see what he saw. Another possibility could be that Mark’s author knew more details than the author of Thomas. Finally, it is just as likely that the structure was not unique to Mark’s author, but instead was one of several tract homes. 

Mark’s appeal to the Jesus followers would have been the narrative he gave of the man that they followed, worshiped, and glorified. The author begins with Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit and flows through the geographical travels of his subsequent teachings and healings until the author concludes with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Themes found in Mark are the power of belief, the lack of belief in man, the coming of the kingdom of God, a sense of urgency, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is also defined in Mark as Christ, son of God, Holy, son of David, last of the prophets, and Lord (Mk 1:1, 1:24, 10:48, 12:6, and 16:19 respectively).  This stands in contrast to Thomas, where Jesus is defined as an angel, philosopher, and teacher, although Jesus rebukes the last saying, “I am not your teacher” (Thom 13).

The definition of Jesus in Thomas is not the only difference we find from Mark. There is no death and resurrection theme in Thomas; rather, the kingdom of God is already present for those that understand (Thom 113). It is not faith that brings salvation in Thomas (Mk 9:2, 22, 29). Instead, looking within and bringing what is inside out is what saves (Thom 70). Also lacking in Thomas are the references to the old testament that point to the idea of Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy in Mark (Mk 1:2, 10:48, 12:10, 14:49, 15:27). These differences may have separated audiences that paid heed to one gospel or the other (or both).

As mentioned previously, Thomas may have resounded more with Jews that were familiar with philosophers like Socrates. They may have been drawn to some parallel ideas and may even have been interested in the idea of having secret knowledge. I imagine the more philosophical type may have already been less interested in ancient readings such as those found in the Hebrew Bible (except for where wisdom could be gleaned) and would have already been along a path of introspection when Thomas was written. Thus, these people may have been less likely to be looking for the Messiah foretold in the ancient scriptures. Thomas would have also been easier for the gentiles to relate to as well. The Jews that were more scripturally bound may have been more drawn to the finished housing of Mark’s gospel.

Jews that knew their scripture and who were suffering would have taken much solace in learning the tradition of Jesus’ teachings and healings and salvation offered to them through faith in him and in God’s possibilities (Mk 10:27). The gospel as a historical type story would have also been familiar to them, as many of their ancient scriptures that they held dear were written as historical stories. The followers of Mark’s gospel likely saw overlap in Thomas, but may have turned away from it because of the lack of support of Jesus as the Messiah, come to save mankind.

The choice of which gospel one might follow still would have been individual, but I can see the draw to that which is more complete, explained, and feels like guidance. Thomas is given to the reader as a list of secret teachings (or sayings) of the person named Jesus. The sayings are not explained, but left bare, without embellishment. By contrast, Mark is a complete story with explanations given along the way. The house has been built, the walls painted, furniture moved in and waits for the tenant to move in and make it his or her home.

Gender Equality and Islam

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11). The question is: what does this quote form the Qur’an mean when it comes to women and their standing in society as compared to men? Too many mullas (religious scholars), it means that women are worth only half of what man is worth. It seems to make sense, right? Why else would men get twice as much as women? It seems logical until you consider the context. What is the context? The way in which society operated at the time this surah was received by Mohammed, PBUH.

 As Benazir Bhutto shares, in sixth century Arabia, men were the providers, women were the provided. Women did not have to work, and what their husband’s earned was theirs. The husbands were in charge of taking care of their wives and children. Thus, when considering inheritance, men needed twice as much, so that he could provide for his wife, and women needed less, since her husband (and his inheritance) was going to provide for her. When considering the quote mentioned above in this context, you can see how it has nothing to do at all with equality, except to makes sure that men and women were equally provided for, considering their social obligations.  

 Today’s gender inequality found in some Islamic areas are not just from the interpretation of mullas, but also from hadith that have been considered “authentic” but may not be, even by the standards that were originally set by the leaders of three of the prominent schools of thought: Malik, Shafi’i, and Hanifa. Several examples that are less than favorable toward women come from hadith reported by Abu Bakra, recorded by Al-Bukhari, whose work “has been the most highly respected references for twelve centuries” (Fatima Mernissi).

Unfortunately, some of these hadith are written without the context, and as mentioned earlier, context is important. Also, Abu Bakra’s hadith are suspect, as he was not honest, having been flogged for slander, and Aisha, the Prophet’s wife counters many of his hadith and even chastised him for collecting hadith he never heard.

Gender inequality in Islam does not come from scripture; rather it comes from a string of male oriented, patriarchal mulla interpretation and the coupling of suspect hadith being considered authentic. I feel one must always consult the Qur’an, pray for guidance, and find harmony between heart, Qur’an, and interpretation – for oneself.

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class in March 2012

The Problem with Interpretation

Today in my Birth of Christianity class, we were discussing who had "ownership" of the scripture in the ancient Hebrew Bible - the Jews or the Christians? Touchy subject, to be sure. Debate grew in the classroom. Some admitted that they were the Jewish people's writings first, and so must be theirs. Others suggested that they became the Christians' as the Christians used and reinterpreted them. I, now known as the class heretic, offered something outside of the box.

The way I see it, they were both the Jewish people's scriptures and the Christians, and at the same time, neither of theirs. Each group laid claim to them (and later, Muslims), and so they each have ownership to their own interpretations, but the only one who knows the actual meaning of the scriptures would be the author - or authors. My professor assumed that I was making a religious argument, that I was looking at this from a theological perspective. I would suggest that he was, not I.

image found on Thumb Press

What I meant is that only the one who writes something, the author, actually knows what meaning s/he intended. My professor assumed I was referring to "God" as the author; rather I was trying to be completely objective, so I was including God (possibly) and the actual human instruments (if indeed they were instruments
). I was trying to look at this problem academically, including all possibilities. For example, whoever wrote the Book of Job had a reason for writing it down. Because we do not have an explicit explanation from the author as to why s/he wrote it down and what it meant, we are left to conjecture and interpretation, which is done with our own personal understandings (bias). The same goes for every other piece of Scripture.

I'll give an example as to how the interpretation that we find may have nothing to do with the meaning of the writing that the author intended. I submit a poem of my own:

The Vanishing

It creeps in

at night

during your sleeping rest.

It strolls

through the corridors

in and out

of rooms.

The paths it takes

are none

to be seen.

It caresses your

thoughts

as shadows disappear.

It steals your

valuable

possessions of time.

It has no

regret

of all damage it causes,

and no

punishment

can it be given,

since its

silence

is that of no virtue,

no seizure,

no hope.

I know what I wrote about. I know the meaning I intended. My challenge to you is to come up with what you believe it is about - your interpretation - and write it below in the comments. I have a link that I will post in response to your comment that will reveal my intended meaning. The challenge is to see if your interpretation is right or wrong when compared to my intended meaning.The goal I seek is whether or not I am right or wrong in my thinking about this. 


I look forward to your comments and interpretations!