Islamic Religion
Islam has been characterized inequitably by historians and the media as a religion of violence. Islam was mainly spread through Arab territorial conquests. Upon examination, it is not fair to make the generalization that Islam is a religion of violence. One can see when looking at world religion on a whole that Islam was no more violent than any other religion. In fact, not only is Islam not a fundamentally violent philosophy, but we can also see that many other religions normally considered "non-violent," such as Christianity or Hinduism, have been spread through bloody conquest. Thus, in searching for a universal constant of history, we should not fall into the "fallacy of abstractions," and assume that because of isolated incidents and conflicts of territorial ambitions, that all religions have violent tendencies.
Throughout the centuries Islam has been a victim of circumstance. It has been perceived by many as oppressive and cruel. This belief originated over a thousand years ago, when Islamic people first threatened the western world. As they slowly undermined Byzantine authority, Christians became terrified of their presence, resulting in widespread animosity and aversion.
Hindus and Buddhists from the South Asian subcontinent lived under Islamic law for hundreds of years. Eventually, in the twentieth century, split the region into angry factions.
Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, was a great warrior. This invariably led defeated people to believe that he begot a cult of war and violence. Over the centuries, it has developed the ability to instill a sense of holy purpose onto its believers and soldiers, where they go into a battle of certain death for their faith in the holy war. The holy war is still a potent source of conflict and aversion, as many of the problems in the Middle East center around the issue of Islamic Fundamentalism and the holy wars.
Originally, Islam was perceived by western historians as a religion of violence and conquest, "by preying on the caravans of the Quraish, Mohammed weakened them to the point of submission” (Anonymous, 1996). In fact, Mohammed was a warrior, aristocrat, and brilliant strategist, a stark contrast to many other holy men of history. He was forced to both defend his cities and force submission. Because of the strong military powers of his religious predecessors and oppresso...
... middle of paper ...
...hile Hinduism remained relatively non-violent throughout the centuries, when the first Muslim invaders appeared and they clashed in both a philosophical and violent sense. Hindu violence returned in the mid-twentieth century, when they finally regained control of India. They smashed a Muslim temple at Ayodhya, and Sikh and Tamil rebel groups rebel against their authority. What is even more notable about Hinduism, is its rigid caste system, in which peoples have set social classes that are totally unchangeable and are products of the religion. The untouchables were considered as low as animals, and forced to do menial work such as sweeping and leather working. They were forced into a life of separatism and the rest of Hindu culture either ignored them completely or hated them. On the other side of the world, in Central America, the Aztec people were powerful warriors, who swept across the Mexican plains, conquering villages and whole peoples. Their religion consisted of brutal human sacrifices of enemy slaves, in fact the sacrifices grew so many in number that they were watching their population decline significantly, which eventually allowed the Spanish invaders to dominate them.
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Cobb, Paul. "Introduction." Ibn Munqidh, Usama. Book of Contemplation Islam and the Crusades. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. xv-xlii.
I do agree with Thrasymachus to an extent. I do believe that ones in power make laws to their advantage and to fit what they believe and stand for. At the same time, we have leaders who want the better for us, or in their mind what they think is better. Not everyone has the same idea of justice. There are laws that are in place to give weak people the same opportunities and advantages as the rest of us. There are always going to be people who need extra help; because they don’t understand some life consequences of their actions. In the United States there are laws to make sure everyone has health insurance so everyone is able to get health care. Laws are for equality, stability, and safety; laws are also for giving the citizens protection as well as the own government
The culture of Islam has its positive aspects, as well as its negative aspects. Islam bestowed many unfortunate people the opportunity to gain more knowledge about their surroundings, and the adversities that they may face on a daily basis. Islam also created alliances, and trade contracts with other surrounding countries, allowing them to receive resources that other religions and groups could not envisage. However, to gain these privileges, Islam had to first fester the lives of many civilians that dared step in its path. Islam not only ruined the lives of people, but it ruined whole kingdoms. Many people felt an...
Violent Jihad as a struggle against one’s enemies has its root in [these] situations. When the Islamic religion spread over the region, Jihad became a religious tenet and assumed the form of a peaceful, internal struggle to strive for the good and reject the evil in one’s action. Violent, external conflict was never r...
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Propaganda produced in the Arab world against the United States and the Western world, alongside the incitement and propaganda aimed against Israel, the Zionist movement and the Jewish people. Among those participating in the anti-American incitement and propaganda are Arab regimes, as well as the media and the education systems throughout the various Arab countries. This mechanism of incitement and propaganda reflects to a large extent the actual "mood" of hostility towards the United States and the entire Western world, prevalent within the Arab and Muslim society. Feelings of hostility are cultivated by terrorism-supporting countries with explicitly anti-American policies, such as Syria and Iran, as well as by Islamic movements, left-wing organizations and various "popular fronts". The more Western-oriented Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan generally tolerate the existence of the incitement and propaganda system, though they at times attempt to limit its impact, lest it should affect their relations with the United States (Ayubi, Nazih, 1999). With the emergence of Islam in the seventh century, conflict immediately emerged between Muslims and Christians. Both religions had periods where its followers were inspired with a mood of hatred and violence (Spencer, H, 1998). Therefore, this hatred led to the rejection of Western civilization, since the West was evil and Westerners were enemies of God. God had enemies and needed human help in order to overthrow them. This was the dualism, which was inherent in Islam. Most people in the United States and more generally in the Western world find it impossible to understand the motives and purposes that drove the perpetrators of these crimes, those who sent them and ...
Islam is portrayed and is commonly accepted as the most violent and largest direct threat to the West. This is a generalization made by most of the West, but it is not particularly the West or the Islamic people’s fault. There is constant turmoil in Islamic countries in the Middle East and these conflicts are what make the news in the West. The only representation in the media that the Islamic nation gets is that of war. Though most Islamic people are not violent, the select few that do participate in terrorist groups give the rest of the Islam nation a bad image.
Islam, a religion of people submitting to one God, seeking peace and a way of life without sin, is always misunderstood throughout the world. What some consider act of bigotry, others believe it to be the lack of education and wrong portrayal of events in media; however, one cannot not justify the so little knowledge that America and Americans have about Islam and Muslims. Historically there are have been myths, many attacks on Islam and much confusion between Islam as a religion and Middle Easter culture that is always associated with it. This paper is meant to dispel, or rather educate about the big issues that plague people’s minds with false ideas and this will only be touching the surface.
Robinson, B.A. (2002, October 14). Islam: Is it a religion of violence or of peace.
Many Christians are taught that Islam teaches the worship of a false God; that Islam was and still is spread by force and terror; that all Muslims are Arabs, and that both oppose the policies of the United States and the essentials of democracy. Millions of Christians have been taught for decades that Islam is an intolerant religion, forbidding the free choice and practice of any religion except Islam. By far the great majority of citizens of the West continue to teach, repeat and believe the distortions and prejudices created centuries ago by a European civilization which regarded Islam as the "traditional enemy."
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.