Common Roots - Part Two
Early in Chapter 1 of What's Right With Islam, Imam Rauf outlines how many of the earliest civilizations advocated acceptance of, or belief in, a variety of gods with each god being assigned a particular section of the universe over which to exercise authority. He goes on to indicate that the leaders of such civilizations – whether called a king, pharaoh, emperor, Caesar, czar, or potentate – were often considered god-like and that the rest of the population were born into one class or another -- ranging from: priestly, to: warrior, noblemen, farmer, merchant, financier, and the like – who performed roles within the greater society that allegedly served the greater good of a divinity, empire, and/or ruler.
Those who did not wish to accept the way things were set up and worked tended to be considered as traitors. Such individuals were usually ostracized, jailed, executed, or some combination of the three.
In many ways, things really haven't changed all that much. Corporations, nations, and so-called 'leaders' work out arrangements – either violently or peacefully – to divvy up the known universe into fiefdoms over which they exercise control. Now they go by the title of president, premier, prime minister, governor, or CEO.
These individuals often consider themselves god-like and frequently are treated as gods by their groupies, supporters, and underlings. The task of these leaders is to induce everyone else to serve what is referred to as the greater good, and almost invariably the 'greater good' is equivalent to whatever agenda the leaders are pushing at any given time … an agenda which serves their needs and not necessarily the needs of the millions of people who, often unwittingly, assist the leaders to realize their agenda..
Nowadays, class is not necessarily a function of inherited roles such as farmer, merchant, religious cleric, warrior, and so on – although things sometimes do work out this way. Today, class is a function of money along with the power that accompanies such money, and for the most part people who begin wealthy stay wealthy, and those who begin poor remain poor.
The classes are fairly rigid in this sense with a limited number of exceptions to the general rule used to shore up the untenable argument that anyone can succeed in today's world. Yes, there are an abundance of rags to riches stories which are trotted out for purposes of propaganda, but, the reality of the matter is that there is only a very limited amount of vertical financial movement which is possible in today's world, and there is even less vertical movement when it comes to acquiring any meaningful sort of power within the structure of modern societies.
Moreover, as was true in the times of earlier civilizations, so too, today, those who are not in accord with the modern way of divvying up power, resources, and money are branded as traitors and, as a result, are ostracized, punished, jailed, executed, or some combination of the four. Some people like to think that substantial progress has been made when one compares early civilizations and present society, but, in all too many ways, nothing really has changed except names, dates, and titles.
According to Imam Rauf we are all free to think for ourselves and that the very idea of mind control is an anathema to any society which purports to be free. Even if one were to agree with Imam Rauf that we might be free to think for ourselves, individuals in this society are often not free to act on what they think (without facing severe sanctions such as loss of a job and/or career, financial hardship, ridicule by the media, or becoming a community outcast), and if one is not free within the sphere of activity, then, one has to question the value of merely being able to think in a free manner that has little, or no, spillover into the realm of action.
However, putting aside, for the moment, the relationship between thinking and activity – which is a very complex, multifaceted problem within a pluralistic society – one might question how many people in this society are really free to even think for themselves. When one learns that five years after September 11, 2001, more than 40% of the people who listen to Fox News still believe there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and the tragedies of 9-11 and/or that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were co-conspirators in the events of 9-11… something which even the President of the United States finally admitted was not the case -- after much hemming, hawing, and many misleading statements by both him and Vice President Cheney on the matter -- then, really, how much of this 40% of the Fox listening audience can be thinking for themselves? When we live in an age when groups like 'the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth' or all too many talk radio hosts, along with media outlets that are financially dependent on corporate owners, sponsors, and advertisers, can, and do, muddy the waters with the express purpose of re-framing events in a distorted manner and, as a result, many recipients of these propaganda campaigns begin to treat distortion and bias as if they were fact … when we exist within a environment of intentionally nurtured fear concerning non-existent entities such as 'weapons of mass destruction' that are used as a pretext for raining down upon other societies our actual weapons of mass destruction … when we live at a time when we are not only urged, but expected to (with a potential for being penalized if we do not) accept the findings of a 9-11 Commission that did not have the time, money, security clearance, subpoena power, will, mandate, or integrity to actually get at the truth of 9-11 and was politically compromised from the very beginning by the very vested interests who were inherently opposed to a truly free and rigorous examination of an 'official story' that does not stand up to even casual critical examination … when we grow up within a compulsory educational environment in which both American and world history are often air-brushed by teachers and textbooks with the cosmetics of mythology, rationalization, and self-serving biases … then, really, how free are people to think for themselves?
There are many degrees of freedom through which to think about misinformation, disinformation, bias, error, falsehood, distortion, and delusion. But, if one does not understand that what one is thinking about is untrue, then, all the freedom in the world is not necessarily going to help one in any constructive manner.
As Henry Ford is once reported to have said: “You can have any color of car you like as long as it's black.” Similarly, all too many people would offer us the idea that we are free to think whatever we like as long as it conforms to the color of belief with which we are provided by those in politics, government, the media, the corporate world, and education who wish to control what we think about and the way in which we think about it.
Imam Rauf refers to the set of values – namely, liberty, equality, social justice, and fraternity … which he believes to be at the core of monotheistic spiritual traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – as the Abrahamic ethic. While in the light of current hostilities among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, it is understandable that Imam Rauf would wish to try to create a basis of common currency among the aforementioned monotheistic traditions by subsuming the above-noted set of values under the rubric of the Abrahamic ethic (millati ibrahim), I also think that this way of doing things carries dimensions of distortion and exclusion with it.
More specifically, the qualities of liberty, equality, social justice and fraternity were part of the message transmitted to humankind by all Prophets, starting with Adam (peace be upon him). The ethic to which this set of qualities gives expression did not start with Abraham (peace be upon him) and, consequently, it is not an ethic which he invented or which started with him, but rather, this ethic consisted of principles dealing with morality and conduct that had been given by Divinity to human beings since the time that the latter first started to walk on the face of the Earth.
The fact of the matter is until Abraham (peace be upon him) received guidance from God], Abraham (peace be upon him) did not know what the truth of things was. As pointed out in the Qur'an, 6: 75-91, he had to go on a spiritual journey, and at one time or another during this quest he questioned whether the moon, stars, or the sun were appropriate objects of worship.
Because God guided Abraham (peace be upon him), the latter was able to navigate through the uncertainties entailed by his consideration of different objects as possible foci for his worship. Without this guidance, Abraham (peace be upon him) would have wandered into the same kinds of errors as did his father and the surrounding community.
Prophets and peoples were guided in this way before Abraham (peace be upon him). The guidance concerned not only the relationship between humankind and Divinity, but the guidance covered, as well, matters involving the relationship of human beings one with another, and, thus, the core set of values encompassing liberty, equality, social justice, and fraternity existed long before the Prophetic mission of Abraham (peace be upon him).
Indeed, as the Qur'an indicates to Muhammad (peace be upon him): “Verily, We have sent messengers before thee. Among them are some of whom We have told thee, and some of whom we did not tell thee. (40: 78)” And, this was as true for Abraham (peace be upon him) as it was for Muhammad (peace be upon him) – there were communities which existed prior to both Abraham and Muhammad (peace be upon them both) that had been sent prophets, books of guidance, and spiritual assistance.
For example, Buddha is not mentioned in the Qur'an, nor is Krishna, nor are the great spiritual personalities of different indigenous peoples. However, perhaps these individuals were, nonetheless, sent by Divinity with guidance – guidance which included principles covering issues of liberty, equality, social justice and fraternity.
In fact, the so-called founding fathers borrowed a great many of 'their' ideas from the principles by which many Native peoples lived their lives. Representatives from the Native peoples were invited to, attended, and contributed a great many substantial and constructive ideas to a number of pre-Constitutional sessions called by the 'founding fathers'.
These contributions revolved around issues of liberty, equality, social justice, and fraternity. Many of these ideas were incorporated into the framework of the Constitution and, later, the Bill of Rights.
The Qur'an does make reference to the millati (ethic, way, principles, method) of Abraham in, for example, the verse: “Who forsakes the millati of Abraham except the one who depreciates himself.” (2: 130) Nonetheless, by and large, this millati is consistent with, and reflects, the essence of the millati which had been taught to people via prophets who came before Abraham (peace be upon him). The millati of Abraham was taught to him just as it was taught to some of those who preceded him, and, so, in reality, the millati Abraham is really the millati Allah.
Imam Rauf says: “While it's true that India, China, and Japan are not generally monotheistic societies, increasingly they are implementing democratic systems of government – systems anchored in the concept of human equality and thus emanating from the Abrahamic ethic. This is the ethic which is embedded in human nature. (page 15)” However, if what Imam Rauf claims – namely, that the ethic in question is embedded in human nature – is true, then, movements toward liberty, equality, and social justice did not emanate from the Abrahamic ethic, but, rather, arose through the presence of Divine guidance in people's lives across time and geographical locales around the world quite independently of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him).
There have been a lot of different spiritual traditions in India, China and Japan, and one wonders if Imam Rauf is not guilty of a certain amount of overgeneralization, if not inequitability, when he claims that these are not generally monotheistic societies. First, one has the problem of trying to disentangle the original nature of a given spiritual tradition from the purely human theological hermeneutics that may have been layered over the original like a complex palimpsest. In other words, even if one were to agree that in some instances there was an absence of what we might recognize as monotheism, nonetheless, this may be irrelevant to teachings concerning the Oneness of Being which might originally have been taught to human beings through Divine emissaries that had been sent to such societies – emissaries which are not necessarily mentioned in the Qur'an or the Bible but which are known to Divinity.
In addition, one could put forth defensible positions that there are strains of Buddhism, Taoism, and the Vedanta – to name just three -- which are rigorously oriented to the idea that Reality is One … even if terms such as God, Divinity, and theism are not used. These same traditions taught values involving freedom, equality, social justice, and fraternity – values which would resonate with what Imam Rauf considers to be the inherent nature of human beings in general and, therefore, are not necessarily derivative from – although quite consonant with -- what he refers to as the Abrahamic ethic.
Later on (page 33) in his book, Imam Rauf says that: “Muslims thereby relate to humanity on three levels: to all humanity as humans, to all religious communities as common heirs of a divinely revealed religious tradition, and to Jews and Christians as direct recipients of the Abrahmaic ethic as such.” Aside from a failure of the foregoing statement to make a distinction between what Islam calls Muslims to do and what Muslims may actually do [and, unfortunately, not all Muslims do relate to other human beings as fellow members of humankind], in addition, contrary to what Imam Rauf claims not all Muslims relate “to all religious communities as common heirs to a divinely revealed religious tradition”. In fact just a small number of pages prior (page 15) to the present quote (page 33), Imam Rauf made comments about how India, China, and Japan are not generally monotheistic societies, and, then, indicated on page 32 that the Abrahamic ethic was rooted in a radical monotheism expressed in loving one God with all one's being. So, readers, quite understandably, may have a tendency to become somewhat confused about what Imam Rauf is really saying in this respect.
On page 34 of What's Right With Islam, under a section labeled: 'Hindus and Buddhists: Older Kids On The Block', Imam Rauf does cite the Quranic verses (4: 163-164) which stipulate that God has sent many messengers to humankind but Divinity has not disclosed the identities of those messengers to everyone. Based on these verses and a few other citations, Imam Rauf argues that “Hindus and Buddhists are descendants from religious teachings originally brought forth from prophets descended from Adam and Noah. (page 35)”.
There is a Hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said that: “there are 71 sects among Jews, and only one of them is correct. There are 73 sects among Christians, and only one of them is correct. There are 73 sects among Muslims, and only one of them is correct.” By interpolation, or extrapolation, one might argue that if Hinduism and Buddhism are derived from spiritual “teachings originally brought forth from prophets descended from Adam and Noah”, then there are x-number of sects in Hinduism and Buddhism, and, perhaps, only one each is respectively correct.
Based on my reading, studies, and discussions with various Hindus and Buddhists, I believe there is a great deal of truth and wisdom inherent in the Hindu and Buddhist spiritual traditions. Nonetheless, I do not believe that by acknowledging this truth, one is, therefore, compelled to accept every iota of Hindu and Buddhist theology as necessarily being accurately reflective of the original spiritual teachings that were given to prophets in those societies anymore than one should feel obligated to accept every scrap of Muslim, Christian, or Jewish theology which exists as being necessarily accurately reflective of the actual spiritual teachings which were given to prophets in the latter societies.
So, while I am quite willing to recognize – as a general principle – that there are various elements, themes, and teachings within Hinduism and Buddhism which do arise out of, and deeply resonate with, original spiritual teachings which pre-dated the appearance of Hinduism and Buddhism, I am not really sure what Imam Rauf has in mind here because he spends almost no time delineating either of these latter two spiritual traditions. Perhaps, wishing to be something of a diplomat or politician, he is trying to be inclusive without really saying anything at all that might entail hermeneutical difficulties for his position.
However, several recurrent themes in Imam Rauf's book are the Oneness of God and the importance of monotheism to the Abrahmic ethic. Given that there are prominent strains of Hinduism which are inclined to polytheism, and there are prominent strains of Buddhism which are oriented around a non-theistic approach to spirituality, one is not quite sure what Imam Rauf is saying.
Is he playing to the majoritarian reading audience of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, with a few amorphous and ambiguous protective bon mots mentioned in passing with respect to several other religious traditions in order to create, at the very least, an appearance of inclusiveness and acceptance of other spiritual paths? Or, is he being somewhat disingenuous about how he words things? Or, is Imam Rauf just muddled in his thinking on these issues?
Furthermore, I find it interesting that there is no mention of traditions like Taoism or the spirituality of various indigenous peoples such as North American Native peoples, the Aborigines of Australia, or the Maori of New Zealand. To be sure, one cannot explore and discuss everything within a book of limited pages and many purposes, but when a reader is grappling with trying to understand what, precisely, Imam Rauf is saying or arguing, then, a few more points of reference in this context than were supplied by him in his book might greatly facilitate matters.
To claim on behalf of Muslims that everyone of us accepts “all religious communities as common heirs to a divinely revealed religious tradition” is just not tenable empirically since there are many Muslims whom I know, or whom I have read about, who would not agree to what Imam Rauf stipulates as being the case in this respect. Moreover, such a claim is not tenable rationally since no one – whether they be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hind, Buddhist, Taoist, or from an indigenous spiritual tradition -- could reasonably expect anyone to accept anything and everything which bears the moniker of “religious”.
Truth is what it is. Various religious traditions are attempts, some of which are much better than others, to merge horizons with at least certain aspects of that truth, and there are few, if any, who would maintain that any tradition which refers to itself as religious or spiritual necessarily succeeds, wholly or partially, in such efforts.
| Part One | Next | Part Four |
| Part Five | Part Six | Return to Menu|
|
