Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives and the Retrospective Self

In response to Paula Fredriksen’s Paul and Augustine:  Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions and the Retrospective Self

Conversion stories bring with them an establishment problem, that of retrospection. Conversions come in an instant; it’s that eureka moment where the light bulb goes off. One is not usually writing about the experience as it happens, instead he/she writes about it after it happens, in retrospect. Retrospection is always 20/20 because we read into our past the information we need to explain our present: to ourselves, to others, to the ones angered by our change of opinion. Paul and Augustine are no different. Augustine takes this a step further though, as he attempts to redefine Paul’s conversion to match his own. He looks for credibility by incorporating Paul into his own conversion and circularly, recreating Paul’s own conversion to match.

Augustine

            Paul has to explain himself to those that disagree or do not understand his new philosophy. His conversion story becomes rhetoric. We cannot know the moment of his conversion, nor do we have a vast autobiographical retrospective account like Augustine, but we can pull what Paul feels convicted about via his rhetorical writings to the churches. But even there, the past gets in the way. We cannot see clearly the present and present theology or philosophy without reviewing the past, where our minds automatically make assumptions to make the past match the present and vice versa. But it’s a past and present that we want to see. We cannot review the past without introducing our own bias, which is the problem of conversion narratives, Paul’s included. 

Paul

Written for my Birth of Christianity class on 2/14/12

Jesus, the Rebel

            When trying to determine who Jesus was, from a historical perspective, scholars say that we can only know bits and pieces. We know that Jesus was someone that others considered important, as they told/wrote stories about him and passed them on through generations. From the stories, we can suppose that he was someone that was considered a prophet by some, a teacher by others, and yet a magician by even others.  Scholars suggest that he was a charismatic, free-spirited, rebellious holy man.

            He must have been charismatic to have such a large following that seemed in awe of him. He would have been considered rebellious or free-spirited in that he debated the Pharisees and suggested that there was a better way to follow than what the Jews had been practicing. He went against the norms in the stories told about him, working on the Sabbath, disrupting the market at the temple, and challenging the religious minds of the day. He was considered so much a rebel, that he was even executed by the Roman government for what seems to be the squashing of a potential political revolt.

            There are limits to what we can know about Jesus, as the stories given about him in the Gospels have an obvious bias to them, and the bits written about him from non-biblical sources do not add much, and perhaps have their own biases. We can try our best to extrapolate who he might have been, or what he might have been like by reading these stories and trying to imagine them set in the time they were written and how others may have perceived him, but mostly it would be conjecture. What we can know is that it appears that a man named Jesus lived in the early years of the Common Era and that he was a force to be reckoned with in his day, enough so that people felt strongly enough about him to immortalize him in story and build a religion around his memory.

Rembrant's Jesus

Written 2/2/12 for my Birth of Christianity class

To Jihad or Not to Jihad…

            After reading Jihad and the Modern World by Sherman Jackson, I am left feeling even more secure in my position that Islam is a religion of peace. Now I can even make my argument better, by using Jackson’s. I was always under the assumption that the radical Islamic groups were less tactful in building their arguments about Jihad and that they instead preyed on individuals searching for something to belong to; individuals with animosity already growing in their hearts from some possible wrongs done to them, their friend, or their family from wars or other “Western” encroachment. As Jackson points out, some of those that might be considered by some as radical, are well respected for their interpretations, and have valid arguments (in many cases), like Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            Qutb suggested that Muslims are to be in a continual state of aggressive Jihad against non-believers, Jews and Christians to be specific, because of historic hostility. He uses the Qur’anic verse 9:29 to substantiate this view, and suggests that the ninth chapter is the final and thus prevailing view of the non-believers and how Muslim should regard them. Jackson points out that not only is another chapter (the fifth) considered by many scholars to be the final one, but that this chapter sets a standard toward the Jews and Christians that is much different than in the ninth, for example, 5:82: “You will find those who are most closely drawn to the Believers in love to be those who say, ‘We are Christians’”. Jackson also refutes Qutb’s idea that peace efforts must be entirely Muslim by showing how the Prophet Mohammed waged peace with pagans in the “Forbidden Months” alliance.

            As a whole, I like how Jackson shows how Shari’a law is meant to be dynamic and set in historical and customary context. I will certainly be placing this article in my repertoire for my future interfaith work. 

Written on 2/6/12 for my Modern Muslim Thought class

In the Best Interest of Humanity

Written on 2/1/12 in response to a couple of readings (sorry, I can't give adequate bibliography) for my Modern Muslim Thought class.

            I found the fatwa, issued by the 1403/1983 Meccan Islamic Law Academy of the World Muslim League, to be hypocritical in it’s function. It was saying that one could receive interest from a bank or financial dealing, but could not  benefit from it, instead donating it to some good cause, like a school. In order to make sure that the person couldn’t benefit from the donation (a good deed), they termed such a donation as not  being sadaqah, but instead a cleansing of the sin of taking the interest. I found it interesting that the Academy felt confident to declare that this donation was null and void in the eyes of God. I didn’t realize that they had such insight. To me, it’s semantics.

            The argument against this fatwa made sense to me, as it is true that in this world it is nearly impossible to not have and benefits that come from bank interest of some kind. They also attacked the hypocrisy of the fatwa. The argument didn’t make it clear, however, which interest is allowed and which  forbidden. The response left me feeling as though they were suggesting the permission of all interest dealings because it’s just to hard to “separate” in our modern world.

            The insurance fatwas were interesting, and I could follow the logic that such insurance policies are liken to gambling, which is forbidden in the Qur'an, but they didn’t address situations where law requires insurance – like with cars in Michigan where drivers are required by law to have auto insurance.

            Life insurance is less of a gamble (as indicated for a reason why it is forbidden) than is auto or property insurance. It is true that one may never reap a benefit from paying for property insurance, but we all die eventually. Where is the gamble?

Legal Acrobats in 10th/16th Century Cairo

This piece was written in response to "Kramer vs. Kramer in a 10th/16th Century Egyptian Court: Post-Formative Jurisprudence Between Exigency & Law" by Sherman A. Jackson

            After having gone through a child custody dispute myself recently, I found it very interesting to read that even in early Islam, there was disagreement regarding bias toward the father or mother. It was also very interesting to read about how the 10^th/16^th century Maliki judge and jurist, Badr al-Din al-Qarafi, had to perform legal and psychological acrobats in an attempt to present a convincing argument in favor of the mothers in regard to premature forfeiture on the fathers’ part.

            Al-Qarafi’s opinion on this matter seems to have, on the surface, gone against the grain in the Maliki school of thought that he was part of. As Maliki law was cumulative and could not abolish any earlier rules, he had to find ways to argue in favor of his opinion by finding logic from earlier rulings or analogies that worked in his favor. This included not only legal maneuvers, but also playing on the emotions of the men he would be up against when presenting his argument, by pointing out what they might have to lose if they disagreed with his line of reasoning. He formed his arguments to lead the audience into agreeing with him by answering questions and opposition arguments before they could come and essentially “tricking” the audience into agreeing with him by way of an analogy that hit too close to home.

            I found that his methods seemed convincing enough to me and that he was quite clever to hide his opposition to the normative train of thought about the subject in a cloak of Maliki mnemonics. It would have made it difficult indeed to call him out as a rebel when his logic came from the school itself. It also seemed very apparent that he knew his audience well enough to know what psychological and social triggers to pull. I have always said one of the first rules of debate (or when constructing a convincing argument) is to know your opponent. If you know how your opponent thinks or feels, you will have a better time knowing what buttons to push and how to word your argument effectively. It seems to me, although he may not have enjoyed much in the way of fruits of his labor, that he was a pretty good legal architect/acrobat.  

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class on 1/23/2012 

Biblical Wisdom

Many people read the Bible in an effort to understand their life; to find answers to their questions about life and perhaps the problems they are facing.  Ancient holy books, like the Torah and the Bible, have been considered not only history books by their readers, but also guidebooks to life and how to live it.  They are instruction books to life and encourage the reader to remember that God is the one in control and that to revere God is the beginning of wisdom (Journey).

In the Hebrew Bible, there is a section of writings that are considered wisdom literature. They are Proverbs, the Book of Job, and Ecclesiastes.  All three writings try to tell the reader how he/she should live their life. Proverbs is a book of writings credited to Solomon. It is essentially an anthology of sayings and poems that make observations about life or instruct the reader in the forms of advice and admonitions (Journey).  Proverbs gives dual choices that are rather black and white to deal with most issues that come up in life. The dualistic nature of proverbs is evident not only in their meaning, but also in their structure, where wisdom and folly are often contrasted within the same short sentence: “Those who are hot-tempered stir up strife, but those who are slow to anger calm contention” (Proverbs 15:18).  The wise person follows the wise choice, and the fool goes astray.  Not only is choice in life simplified to two choices for every question, but it suggested that divine justice is always served.  The wise person is rewarded and the fool is punished; therefore, be wise (choose rightly): “Therefore walk in the way of the good, and keep to the paths of the just. For the upright will abide in the land, and the innocent will remain in it; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be roosted out of it” (Proverbs 2:20-20).

Proverbs gives the reader the sense that God is control of all things and that the meaning of life is to be good, choose wisely, and you will be rewarded. The flip side of the idea is that any wrong against you will be meted out in punishment of the fool.  The wisdom to some might give the idea that if they do good deeds, they will always be rewarded; but one of the main concepts that is strung through Proverbs is that reverence of God is of the most importance. Without that you have no wisdom (Journey). The other wisdom writings, the book of Job and Ecclesiastes, are not as optimistic about life and divine justice.

The Book of Job is a writing that is structured as a poetic drama enveloped within a folk tale. This book might ultimately tell the reader to have faith in God, no matter what, because the reader cannot possibly understand the ways of God. Either God’s ways are outside comprehension or we are simply unable to know or understand all the facts. The story is roughly an account of what a righteous man, Job, is put through because God took up a wager with one of his court, the accuser. The accuser, or Satan, suggested that Job was only thankful and reverent to God because he had abundance in life. He wagered that if Job was afflicted, he would no longer remain so pious. So, taking Satan’s bet, God allowed Satan to afflict Job and bring suffering upon him in rapid succession.  Job knows that he has been wise and good and is perplexed with his sudden calamity. He knows that he is righteous, yet his suffering went against divine justice.  He essentially asks, “why me?” while lamenting.

Many people throughout the ages and into the future have and will identify with Job, asking the same, “why me?” when finding themselves in what they perceive as unjust situations. Stricken with cancer even though you lived a healthy life? You may ask, “why me?” Lost your job even though you were an exemplary employee? Again, “why me?” The Book of Job tries to explain to the reader that not only can we not begin to understand God, but that also, humanity is not the center of the universe. Human justice is not necessarily of God’s concern, but our own (Journey). It does give a bit of reflection to the idea of the righteous being rewarded, however, as Job is rewarded doubly after passing this test of his love for God. It gives hope to the sufferer that the reward will come as long as he/she is faithful and patient.  Again, we hear the idea that wisdom begins with reverence for God.

Ecclesiastes is yet another writing in the wisdom literature. It is perhaps less optimistic than Job in that it writes off life as essentially meaningless and the pursuit for wisdom is futile. There is no divine justice as it seems the wicked and the good both die in the end and in life the wicked are often treated well, and the good treated wickedly (Journey and Ecclesiastes). This writing is also attributed to Solomon, but may have been written by an old sage (perhaps an old disillusioned Solomon?). It gives the idea to the reader that it is best not to question the way of the world or the ways of God, as god is inscrutable and all else is vanity and emptiness. It suggests to the reader to essentially, eat drink and be merry, for life in this world is short, so enjoy it as it comes, moment by moment (Journey).

It doesn’t remove the reader from God, but basically reiterates the idea from Job that one should have faith in God that all is as it should be, and that he/she cannot possibly fathom the reasons. It suggests that we should try to find the good in every situation – for how else can one enjoy life moment by moment unless he/she looks for the good in that moment? It gives the reader the sense to persevere, not because we will be rewarded like Job, but because we can’t completely understand what God may be up to. The book finishes with a touch that may have been added by an editor to reign in the work to include God and retribution a bit more: “The end of the matter; all has been heard, fear God, and keep his commandments, for that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). Again we hear the echo of the reverence of God being the beginning of wisdom. 

Written 12/5/11 for my Intro to Biblical Literature class

Ancient Arabian Civilization

In The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington defines Civilization as “a cultural identity”, specifically, “the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity have short of that distinguishes humans from other species. “ (Huntington 23-24) The author of Arabia and the Arabs: From the bronze age to the coming of Islam, Robert G. Hoyland, essentially agrees – “There is some awareness that [the Arab people] may not all have possessed the same racial origins, but none doubted that they had come to form a single ethnic (socio-cultural) community.” (Hoyland 229). Before we can discuss how a people as diverse as those who lived in ancient Arabia can end up having a single cultural identity, we must first look at who these people were.

In Hoyland’s book, Ancient Arabia is demarked as the land including the Arabian Peninsula, stretching northward through the Syrian Desert. This area is approximately equivalent to one-quarter of the continental US. This large piece of land contained diverse people with distinctive histories and traditions due to their original isolation from each other (because of the vast deserts) and due to their closeness to different nations and cultures near to each corner of Arabia (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, etc.) (Hoyland 5). Because of the lands great deserts and lack of resources, such as the bare necessities: food and water, many Arab tribes were nomadic in nature. In fact, even the term “Arab” is used in biblical texts, describing these nomadic people, and was likely used by these nomads themselves as a way to describe themselves separate from others. Those that were sedentary generally existed near the boundaries to other nations or along habitable shorelines.


Because of the natural resource issue and weather tendencies, Arab civilizations first appeared where resources were more abundant and living conditions more stable and comfortable – in the South and East ends of Arabia. The people living on the east side of Arabia had much contact with and thus influence from Mesopotamia and trade and thus show up in historical writings first (Hoyland 10). Later, due to trade and military conquests by outside parties (Byzantine Empire, Sasanian Empire, Rome, and Iran to name a few), Arabia opened up and forced Arabian people to take part in world power games. What brought these people of diverse backgrounds together was namely language, but also their military prowess and religious ideas, the last of which became more important post-Islam (Hoyland 230-246).

Although the Arab people had influences exerted over them from neighbors via trade and greedy empires, language was their glue of unity and it primarily identified them from the others. The southern Arabs were noted as the “Arabic-speaking Arabs” by historians and it is likely a mass migration of these southern Arabs that brings the language to the rest of the land (Hoyland 233-236). Arabic is written in a script that has its origins in the Nabataean alphabet, which now, post transformations, constitutes the Arabic script. Although documents describing the history of Arabia are rare, the oral tradition of Arab poetic mastery is where much information about the history of these people is derived. One of the features of Arabic that united the people of this vast land was the ability for the diction of the poetry to be understood by anyone speaking Arabic, regardless of dialect. Their poetry was a way to write the past, especially for the nomadic tribes, who likely used oral traditions versus written as a way to pass along information (Hoyland 242). Many of the poems celebrated their military prowess, which was another part of the cultural glue.

Although many nomadic Arabs aided the entering empires with their battle skill, they still seemed to hold their own identity as Arabs. But, because of their military partnerships with these outside forces, they were also influenced by their culture, idea of imperialism, and even religion. Still, an Arab was an Arab. Even the settled Arabs, whether settled due to an abundance of resources, or because of the economic relations with neighboring empires (or conquering empires), they still held their language and historic identity enough to remain Arab first.


Even with the advent of Islam, perhaps because of the advent of Islam, the Arab identity is even stronger. Language again played a very important role of even Islamic “Arab-ness”. There was a lot of upheaval and confusion in the early days of Islam, after Mohammed’s death. It was to the Islamic nomadic Arabs that the scholars turned to in order to sort out the confusion of what laws should be composed and how Islam should be taught. Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ ultimately tied the Arabic language to the study and practice of Islam by promoting “Quranic and grammatical studies” by routinely dispatching “his students to nomad informants to resolve [points] of grammar, to ask about ‘the speech of the nomadic Arabs’… especially elderly sheikhs who had been alive before Islam” (Hoyland 245).

Ancient Arab identity was firmly rooted in language. Even as tribes migrated, settled, and dispersed, language was something they held in common, in opposition to the “others”. Language separated them from the Romans and Iranians, even as imperialism infiltrated their culture. Language tied religion to the identity of ancient Arabs in the early Islamic days. Even now, language plays a huge role in the identity of Muslims, as Arabic is the language of the holy book and prophet. Many non-Arab converts to Islam often adopt an Arabic name in honor of that tie. They will often have a desire to learn Arabic to read the Qur’an and even visit the homeland of the prophet Mohammed. (Hoyland 8)

By this standpoint, Arab civilization fits with Huntington’s definition, as Language is what separates the Arab from the non-Arab, more than anything else, although their cultural and religious traditions often also play a large part. It is even possible to agree with his idea of a “clash of civilizations” with the knowledge that Arabic is becoming less important in a world almost ruled by the English language. Most Arab students learn English early in life, whereas English and other speaking students don’t usually learn Arabic unless it is in relation to Islamic education. Will a war erupt over language? I doubt it. It is more likely that Arabic could be lost to assimilation. Would that change the identity of “Arab”? Likely. What would take its place? Perhaps religion.

Bibliography

Hoyland, Robert G. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.

Huntington, Samuel. The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72(3):22-49. 1993.

Written on October 10, 2011 for my Global Studies class, Encountering Differences