Mine and Mind

The Balance in the world of religions
Each religion including that of Christianity, Buddhism and Islam had its particular impact on the very essence of the word, shaping its culture, politics, science, social life according to the main prerogatives of the religions mentioned. Moreover, religions had, I would say, the most important influence on history. It is due the conflict between Christianity and Islam the progress of Western society turned out to be so extensive and deep. It is due to Buddhism people try to bring profound changes to their lives making an effort to free themselves from negative influence of the society they live in.

Buddhism

As the religion of more than 90 per cent of Thailand’s population, Buddhism became one of the three pillars of the national ideology, alongside the monarchy and the nation. Since the very beginnings of Buddhism in Thailand in the thirteenth century, it has always been closely linked with the state, and specifically with the king in the form of the dhammaraja (Dharma ruler or just ruler).

Buddhists stress the personal choice of the individual or family when it comes to religion. No religion is superior to another: the goal of all religions is identical–to lead a moral life–and converting others to Buddhism is not given much prominence.

Buddhism in the age of Asoka had made universal claims to the allegiance of man. Eventually, allegiance or commitment would become the major feature of other religions such as Christianity and Islam

Christianity unjustified use of force. The Christians are convinced that theirs is the way of ultimate truth. For Protestants even more than for Catholics, Christianity is seen as superior to all other religions.

Christianity has become the religion of dogmas. However, divided by heresy and factionalism, and permeated by impiety, inequity, iniquity and idolatry Christianity was near to lose its humanistic nature. Still, the image Christianity as a vibrant, active, progressive was a good contrast to a passive inert Islam. This was one of the factors that enabled religious and political hegemony of Western culture.

These were common definitions of differences between these two religions. Edward Freeman, for example, defined the west as progressive, legal, monogamous and Christian, and the East as arbitrary, stationary, polygamous and Mahometan. To William Muir, Islam may have been suitable to the Arabia of the time of Muhammad, but quite unsuited to other times and places: “it binds society hand and foot”, he declared. [Smith B, 1995]. So, my evaluation of Christianity as a religion would look as follows.

Cultural tradition: no religious enthusiasm, argument concerning the relative truth Christianity

Artistic traditions: partial religious contest in all kinds of artistic traditions, the prevalence of secular traditions over religious ones

Political system: Legal basis

Social system: secular and religious patronage, the moral value of women, slavery, , violence and cruelty, revolutions of public life.

Islam as religion of enthusiasm

In the later part of the eighteenth and into the nineteenth century, religious enthusiasm no longer carried the radical political and social implications it had held during Commonwealth and Restoration times. It was more often viewed as potentially self-deceptive than socially disruptive. As Nathan Alcock put it in 1796: “Enthusiasm may cause a man to deceive himself, and take his own fancies and conceptions for divine suggestions. This probably was the case with Mahomet and the success of his enterprises [sic] might still further persuade him that his cause was the cause of God.” [Thomas Alcock T.,, 1796]

In the Victorian period, the cultural hegemony of west over east allowed for modifications to the image of Islam as a religion of force. On the one hand it could be argued that, while an aggressive Islam needed to be opposed, a peaceful Islam was impotent and only fit for cultural improvement.

On the other hand, the role of force in Islam could be down-played. From the middle of the seventeenth century there had been those who decried it as a vulgar opinion that Muhammad spread the faith by the sword. [Tailor.T, 1868].

To cover Islam from the perspective of cultural, artistic, political and social perspective I would like to propose you the following brief analysis of Islam.

Cultural tradition: religious enthusiasm, argument concerning the relative truth of Islam

Artistic traditions: dominance of religious contest in all kinds of artistic traditions

Political system: justified use of force, mission of spreading the faith, imperial confidence in the virtue of Islamic culture, radical political and social implications, the image of Islam as a religion of force, the political decrepitude and moral and social evils

Social system: secular and religious patronage, the moral degradation of women, slavery, the physical and mental debilities of men, envy, violence and cruelty, the disquiet and misery of private life, the continual agitations, commotions, and revolutions of public life.

According to Smith Islam and scientific and political progress are incompatible.

Thus, Islam was often seen as the source of all the evils which, in the western imagination at least, had afflicted Islamic societies. It was Islam, extravagant but not progressive, that had relieved the eastern mind from the discipline of improving itself, and had left it in its preferred state of untamed wildness. Islam and scientific and political progress are incompatible, as Christianity and scientific and political progress are not incompatible”. [Smith B., 1995]

Consequently, Islamic religion can be characterized by

1.Blind devotion to Muhammad

2.The presence of Islamic fatalism.

3.religious intolerance

4.political despotism

Despotism.

The perceived relationship between Islam and despotism has always been the landmark of many disputes. However, I would again refer to Bosworth Smith, who considered that it to be wrong to judge Islam in terms of despotism as well as Christianity in terms of Anabaptists, Pillar Saints, or Shakers. Consequently, a strong tendency to evaluate Islam as the source of all evil is a mistake.

It is quite visible that there are significant differences in the cultures of different religious societies. However, my reading the book by Herb Ziegler Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past has helped me to shape my perception of history as connection of “complex societies”[Ziegler H.,2005] that eventually is an inevitable process for coexistence of different worlds and ways of life. However, the most controversial issue in this aspect is religion.

6

Conclusion.

The world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) created the history and shaped it in the way of continuous contest the outcome of which is the society we are having now as it has been stated in my paper. My research also proved that each religion is unique in its own way, and is build upon long-term traditions. In fact, all religions has both positive and negative sides. Eventually, neither of religions could be defined as right or wrong. That is why everyone must be aware f other civilization’s presence and its cultural, social and political values. Consequently, the rivalry between this West and that East–between the West and Islam–is natural rivalry of two different systems each of which has strong demand for world dominance.

Produced by ProfEssays ( www.professays.com ) – professional custom essay writing service: custom essays, custom term papers, custom academic papers, custom research papers, compositions, book reports, case study. No plagiarism, high quality, prompt delivery.

Adoption Laws In Islam: Some Issues

Zahidul Islam Biswas

This is basically in response to the write-up by K M Rasheduzzaman Raja, a Joint District Judge at Sirajgonj, published in the Daily Star on 3 September 2005 entitled ‘Adoption law is need of the hour’. Mentioning two examples, the honourable judge has tried to advocate for the provision of adoption in Muslim personal law. His first example tells the story that a wealthy elderly woman without any children was killed by her nephew who was her only heir. To expedite his inheritance he hired a professional killer to commit the grisly crime. It could have been otherwise if she had a child who should have taken care of her in her last days as the other children do in our society in the case of their parents. The other example is that an expatriate woman who was cherishing for motherhood for long time expressed her desire to adopt a baby, left in a clinic by its poor mother after delivery, and accordingly she filed a petition before the Family Court. Not surprisingly, the court frustrated her saying that the law can only provide her with guardianship of the child on consideration of her legal capacity, but cannot let it be adopted on consideration of her parental affection.

With these two examples followed by a short discussion on problems for not having provision of adoption in Muslim personal law, he concludes that at a certain age the wealthy industrialists, business tycoons or financially solvent persons having no issues become tired and cast a vacant look upon their hard-work-earned huge property and cast a deep sigh thinking that who would maintain their empire of wealth in their absence in the world. To let them come out of such despairing condition the adoption law can play a magic and keep them active till their last day to flourish the economy of the country.

Hence, it seems that the honourable judge has given a tremendous thought for a class of wealthy people of the country. However, with due respect to his views, I want to express the insights into the prohibition of adoption in Islam. This write-up is, simultaneously, expected to state whether adoption law is a solution to the problem.

The central notion of justice in the Shari’ah is based on mutual respect of one human being by another. The just society in Islam means the society that secures and maintains respect for persons and their rights through various social arrangements that are in the common interest and welfare of all members. Islam views adoption as a falsification of the natural order of society and of reality. And the prohibition of legal adoption in Islam has been, in fact, ordained to protect the rights, not of a single class, but of the adopted, adopter, natural parents, other individuals affected by the adoption, and society as a whole. This proposition will be made clear in the following.

The child is an extension of his father and the bearer of his characteristics. During his lifetime he is the joy of his father’s eyes. While after his father’s death the child represents a continuation of his existence and an embodiment of his immortality. The child inherits his features and stature as well as his mental qualities and traits, both the good and the bad, the beautiful as well as the ugly. The child is a part of the father’s heart and a piece of his body. These facts cannot be altered by adoption of that child by anyone and Islam has provided the inalienable right of the child to his lineage as well as that of the natural father to lineage.

The child in Islam also has the equally inalienable right to legitimacy. The principle of legitimacy holds that every child shall have a father and one father only. This is why Allah has ordained marriage and has forbidden adultery so that paternity may be established without doubt or ambiguity and that the child may be referred to his father and the father to his sons and daughters. Hence, adoption cannot be used in Islam to hide the illegitimacy or the paternity of the child.

By adopting someone’s child, as one’s own, the rightful and deserving heirs to the property of a man are deprived of their shares. Hence Islam has made it haram (forbidden) for a father to deprive his natural children of inheritance. Allah has established the distribution of inheritance in order to give each eligible person his or her share. In matters of inheritance, the Qur’an does not recognise any claim except those based on relationship through blood and marriage (Qur’an 8:75).

Taking a stranger, by adoption, into the family as one of its members and allowing him the privacy to be with women who are not close relatives (non-mahrem), is a deception, for the adopter’s wife is not the adopted son’s mother, nor is his daughter the boy’s sister, nor is his sister the boy’s aunt since all of them are non-mahrem to him and vice-versa for an adopted daughter. Also when the adopted child’s lineal identity or paternity is changed, it is quite possible that the adopted child may, unknowingly, enter into incestuous relationships by marrying close relatives of the natural parents (mahrem) or otherwise his marital chances may in general become subject to confusion.

When the adopted child receives a claim on the inheritance of the adopter, the anger and wrath of the real relatives may be aroused against the adopted who the relatives feel forces himself or herself upon them and usurps their rights, depriving them of their full inheritance. Often such anger leads to quarrels, fights, and even killings, as we see nowadays, and to the breaking of relations among relatives. Therefore, it is not conducive to family solidarity and overall harmony and peace, which are necessary for social stability.

However, “adoption” is also used in another sense. This use of adoption is not prohibited by Islam — that is, when a man brings home an orphan (including a foundling or abandoned child) and wants to raise, to educate, and to treat as his own child. In this case, he protects, feeds, clothes, teaches, and loves the child as his own without attributing the child to himself, nor does he give him or her the rights which the Shari’ah reserves for natural children. However, if a man is childless and has no children of his own, and he wishes to benefit such a child (orphan or foundling) from his wealth, he may give him whatever he wants during his lifetime. This is a meritorious and noteworthy act in Islam, and the man who does it will be rewarded by Allah.

Muslims believe that Allah is the Wise, All-Knowing and Merciful. He makes things halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden) for a reason, with the people’s well being in mind. Thus, a Muslim is not required to know exactly what is harmful in what Allah has prohibited; it may be hidden or not clear to him but could be apparent or clear to someone else, or its harm may not have been discovered during his lifetime but may be understood at a later time period or era. A great example of this is the prohibition of the eating of pork in Islam. Scientific research, after centuries of this prohibition, has now shown the presence of parasites and deadly bacteria in its flesh. True believers have to accept Allah’s Wisdom and Knowledge in the forbidding of any act since He sees and knows things on a universal and timeless basis for all mankind unlike the ability of human beings to focus mainly on individual and present needs. Thus the acceptance of the prohibition of legal adoption, as it is personal affairs of Muslims and affecting no person of other religions, should also be regarded as the acceptance of the timeless power and knowledge of Allah.

The author is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. This article was first published in the ‘Law and Our Rights’ section of the The Daily Star, Issue No: 206; September 10, 2005, Bangladesh.

Religions from God

God Almighty, revealed the religion to the entire mankind through his prophets who lived in different ages, in different parts of the world and in different societies, right from the period of creation of the first man Adam who is the first prophet until Muhammad who is the last prophet.

The existing religions such as Hinduism/Vedism, Zoroastrianism/Mazdayasni, Taoism, Judaism, Islam are the ones revealed by and originated from God who is one and only one. Jainism, Budhism and Christianity are not separate religions. When Jainism and Budhism are a part of Hinduism, Christianity is a part of Judaism. This is because Mahaveer, Gautama Buddha or Jesus were not sent by God to institute a new religion separate from the religions that had been revealed long before them and were in practice at their time ie Hinduism and Judaism. But God sent them to preach the morals, impart wisdom to peoples and to dispel man-made traditions that had gone against God-revealed religions.

Similarities Between Godâ??s Religions

As Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Judaism and Islam had originated from one and the same source who is God Almighty, these religions are closely inter-related and have many common beliefs, rituals, worship, rules, laws, morals, and wisdom. The reason for the similarities is that Godâ??s law is universal and as such his religion is universal too. Some people think that the similarities between religions are due to one religion borrowing beliefs and philosophies from other religion(s) and vice versa. But they are mistaken and have failed to notice or hardened their hearts to refuse to believe that the author of these religions is one God and hence the similarities.

One Religion

Worship (Yajna/Yasna/Salat), other rituals, laws, morals, knowledge, wisdom and many other teachings found in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Judaism, and Islam are fundamentally same and corroborate each other. Hence these religions are like several branches in a tree and these form part of, and constitute basically ONE RELIGION of God Almighty.

Many people have concern about what is happening with the American educational system. Politicians throw money at it in an attempt to please their electorate. Recently private schools and home schooling have gained ground and in fact produce higher academic numbers on average. But nobody that I know of has taken a look at where we went wrong and when.

But first a look at when we were doing well. Noah Webster once known as the headmaster of American education and author of the first American English dictionary 1828. Noah Webster could be called one of the founding teachers. He was an educator himself and wrote many educational texts including the Blue back Speller which was the spelling book of the 19th century which had sold 80 million copies by 1899. Noah Webster said in his dictionary that education “should enlighten the understanding”. But I invite everyone to look at the full definition which can be accessed on the internet. There were others who contributed to the original philosophy of American education namely: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, the Quakers etc. etc.. Thomas Jefferson stated that “young people should study history to be able to recognize tyranny in embryo and so crush it.” So these were the individuals that were responsible for creating the original American educational philosophy which was successful.

So now, what went wrong? And who is responsible? Well, it was actually a very fundamental change in the philosophy. It all started around the turn of the century. There was a new school of thought germinating from Wuntian psychology out of Germany (Wilhelm Wunt father of modern psychology). The philosophy was definitely materialistic and totally opposite of the original meaning of the word psychology – the study and doctrines of the human soul.

The new idea was that humans were not spiritual beings but that we were all just animals and that the way you understand human behavior is by comparing us to animals. If you understood how a rat behaved you would then understand how a human behaved. So this philosophy was gradually entered into every university begining at the turn of the century. It became behaviorism and that became the standard philosophy taught in colleges by 1960 to all teachers as part of there training as educators. The teaching philosopy was conditioning and not understanding as Noah Webster had statedThis by the way, was a direct date coincidence with the statistics of the failure of American education.

So what can we do about this? Well there is private schools or homeschooling both of which are a lot more successful on average than public schools. I am not trying to upbraid teachers as I think it is one of the most important jobs in our society and teachers are, for the most part, well intentioned. I just think they have been misinformed. We need to make education so that young people actually reach for it instead of having it forced upon them. Also education is not for the masses it should be tailored to each student. In other words each student should get the basics reading writing arithmatic. But after that they should have their own personal program based on their goals. They should be made aware of the importance of history but should explore the subject themselves and should read the writings of the people who were actually a part of history rather than somebodies interpretation of it. Example, the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.