"Yet when those who are weak and oppressed rise up and come to power; they can end up quickly oppressing others. The Israelite Tribes were oppressed in Egypt under Pharaoh's idolatrous ego, as the Qur'an narrates. Yet when the Israelite Tribes tasted freedom from oppression, they turned against their Prophet, trying to oppress Moses and render him weak. Like the Israelite Tribes, the Muslim community also has a history mixed with success and failure. Their initial fervor in standing up for the weak and dispossessed was galvanized by the Prophet Muhammad, himself an orphan, and his earliest followers were slaves, women, ethnic minorities, and other marginalized outsiders. In their fervor, the earliest Muslims established an innovative new commonwealth, based on a brother-and-sisterhood of belief, shared wealth, and mutual protection. Their experiment conflicted with Arab tribal forces in Mecca and later Jewish sectarian forces in Medina, the two forces that defined the status quo of military might, trade profits, and religious legitimacy in Arabia.
The initial success of the Muslims' experiment, however, rendered it liable to compromise and retrogression. Muslims increasingly turned to fighting external enemies in order to bolster their mutual solidarity, while allowing old tribal pride and patriarchal values to creep back into their community. As warfare generated power and profits, Muslims returned to the old inequalities and hierarchies. They began keeping slaves even though the Qur'an urged them to free slaves. They began acting as patriarchs even though the Qur'an declares the moral equality of men and women. They began living in luxury even though the Qur'an warns against the hoarding of wealth. Within a few generations, the Muslims' experimental commonwealth of liberation became an empire that rivaled Rome. The Qur'anic message of liberation was interpreted as an Islamic character for domination."
Scott Sirah al-Haqq Kugle, Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims, pp. 36-37
Several months back I was having dinner with my SO and I was talking about a squabble I was having with another convert at the masjid. I made the point something like, "Well, you know how converts to any faith can be annoying because they're so super-charged and fixated on the rules," to which she surprised me by saying, "But I don't think you are." Truthfully I hadn't really thought about it in that way, and obviously I'm very annoying in many other ways. I'm sure I delivered one of my canned responses which always goes something like, "I think religions are founded by one or two individuals with a new and pure view of the transcendent, that is later ruined by generations of mean-spirited pricks." Or, that religions are often contaminated by political or economic or dynastic expediency, although the Prophet himself managed to rise above these distractions. Essentially, I can never separate my view of religions from my training as a historian and my decades of teaching history; I simply have a clear sense of the compromises that religions make as they evolve and devolve (which may be why I find myself drawing a distinction between faith and religion). Kugle does a nice job laying out the quandary that the early Muslims found themselves in as they suddenly, and almost inexplicably, found themselves in control of an empire. The simple political and social structure that served the needs of the Prophet's generation were now stressed by the challenges of managing an empire. At a certain point did a faith based on fighting oppression become a religion that all too often re-enforced oppression?
The initial success of the Muslims' experiment, however, rendered it liable to compromise and retrogression. Muslims increasingly turned to fighting external enemies in order to bolster their mutual solidarity, while allowing old tribal pride and patriarchal values to creep back into their community. As warfare generated power and profits, Muslims returned to the old inequalities and hierarchies. They began keeping slaves even though the Qur'an urged them to free slaves. They began acting as patriarchs even though the Qur'an declares the moral equality of men and women. They began living in luxury even though the Qur'an warns against the hoarding of wealth. Within a few generations, the Muslims' experimental commonwealth of liberation became an empire that rivaled Rome. The Qur'anic message of liberation was interpreted as an Islamic character for domination."
Scott Sirah al-Haqq Kugle, Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims, pp. 36-37
Several months back I was having dinner with my SO and I was talking about a squabble I was having with another convert at the masjid. I made the point something like, "Well, you know how converts to any faith can be annoying because they're so super-charged and fixated on the rules," to which she surprised me by saying, "But I don't think you are." Truthfully I hadn't really thought about it in that way, and obviously I'm very annoying in many other ways. I'm sure I delivered one of my canned responses which always goes something like, "I think religions are founded by one or two individuals with a new and pure view of the transcendent, that is later ruined by generations of mean-spirited pricks." Or, that religions are often contaminated by political or economic or dynastic expediency, although the Prophet himself managed to rise above these distractions. Essentially, I can never separate my view of religions from my training as a historian and my decades of teaching history; I simply have a clear sense of the compromises that religions make as they evolve and devolve (which may be why I find myself drawing a distinction between faith and religion). Kugle does a nice job laying out the quandary that the early Muslims found themselves in as they suddenly, and almost inexplicably, found themselves in control of an empire. The simple political and social structure that served the needs of the Prophet's generation were now stressed by the challenges of managing an empire. At a certain point did a faith based on fighting oppression become a religion that all too often re-enforced oppression?
No comments:
Post a Comment