www.silkroadfinalblogproject.wordpress.com

The emphasis of context, of time, place, etc. has been brought up in many different articles that we have read in this course. Therefore, the context in which these Jewish communities existed is quite important for the study of Jews on the Silk Roads. How did they practice? How did their beliefs manifest? How did they effect, or how where they effect by the corresponding communities that they lived in/near by?

Further in this article, Lena Cansdale begins to very briefly outline the writing of Ibn Khurdadhbhih – “Postmaster General of Baghdad”. He writes, “They (Jewish merchants) speak Arabic, Persian, Greek (Rumiya), Frankish, Spanish and Slav. They journey from East to West and West to East by land and by sea.” This provides some inclination of how different communities affected the Jewish people along the Silk Roads.

I was also interested to see that most scholars took an extremely subjective view of the environment and people that surrounded them. Along with this, Hedin and others wrote very poetically about the dangers of their expeditions and dramatized/romanticized the areas in which they traveled. Above all they “exoticized” the people and the land from which they came from. One interesting example of such subjective views stems from Huntington’s supposed “scientific evidence” in which he “proves” that changes in climate have an affect on human beings in the region. He concludes, “we should expect to find that people in extremely hot, dry countries like Persia and Chinese Turkestan, where parching wings abound, are nervous, emotional and uncontrollable. As a matter of fact they are not so nervous as might be expected; but they are certainly highly emotional and very lacking in self-control”.

Hirschkind and Mahmood also exhibit this overall unfortunate tendency to group together a large vast of practicing Muslims under one category that is portrayed as violent, radical, and reinforces the oppression of women. In this paper, however, the authors focus on the way in which “those in the West” (another generalization) view all Muslims as adherents and believers in the rules of the Taliban. Interestingly enough, this portrayal of Muslims that has been contrived through the Taliban image is only possible because of the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan – an important historical event that could not have occurred without the aid of the United States. As was summarized in their article Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-Insurgency, Hirschkind and Mahmood illustrate how continual supply of economic and military resources to specific extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan has eventually given rise to the Taliban. Therefore, the image of Muslims today as fundamentalists could have only been established after US intervention aided extremist groups in their mission of becoming more powerful. Moreover, Hirschkind and Mahmood seem to argue the same idea that Sharf has in the past article that we have read. “…when it comes to Islam…the Feminist majority, can offer up an analysis of the conditions of Afghan women’s lives that barely touches on the context of persistent war, rampant ethnic and tribal violence, and the complete unraveling of Afghanistan’s complicated social fabric that resulted from the country’s incorporation into the Cold War.” This idea that scholars should study religions, civilizations, etc. within context and after examining the whole picture is an important that seems to be forgotten by many.

Both Ernst and Ayoub (The Spread of Islam) touch on the importance of Islam in European development. Ernst presents this notion with more intention and force than Ayoub, who takes a more subtle approach. Nevertheless, both examine the spread of scientific and philosophical thought into Europe and seem to attribute much of this to the spread of Islam into adjoining continents. After portraying the importance of Islam in the evolution of European thought, Ernst asks again why the Muslim tradition has been historically (and until today) viewed in a negative manner?

Ernst suggests that this utmost hatred for Islam has deep-seeded roots and cannot be easily attributed to one underlying factor. He mentions that, historically, Christians had an ‘issue’ with another prophet after Jesus. Because of this, the interpretations that Christians provided about Prophet Muhammad’s life decisions (marriage, warfare, etc.) were riddled with negative stereotypes that, till’ today, Western society seems to uphold (Islamic religion was and is still viewed as a violent religion that oppresses women).

On a different note, Ayoub’s historical account provided in The Spread of Islam brings up a lot of questions (for me at least). Thinking back on the definition of syncretism, is it possible to say that through the spread of Islam many different ‘versions’ of the tradition developed through syncretism? Or is this simply the assimilation of different parts of  cultures, religions, traditions into one lifestyle (is this the essence of syncretism)? It was briefly mentioned that emperor Akbar (in India I believe) had attempted to create a new religion (‘Divine Religion’) by incorporating different parts of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism into one religion. After his death, prince Dara Shikoh attempted to carry out this goal but was assassinated. It seems that in an attempt to prevent syncretism a man had been killed. However, syncretism seems to me at least a natural evolution of a mixing of cultures that is inevitable. If this is true, then is there any such thing as a ‘pure religion’?

After Klimkeit’s informative introduction, and Valantasis’s compilation of different selections from the Cologne Mani Codex (CMC), I began familiarizing myself with the concept of syncretism. A simple definition of the word was provided by Colpe’s Syncretism [First Edition] provided in the Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd Ed.); it stated, “The term syncretism usually refers to connections of a special kind between languages, cultures, or religions”. When I first read this I was excited at the simplicity of the religion, however, I soon realized that many different “linkages” that have been “discovered” by scholars are mistaken for syncretism although they are actually various forms of religious differentiation.

In the end, three different syncretic developments were established; (1) a religion that is superimposed becomes more dominant than the older religion, which still survives, (2) the opposite can also occur (the older religion predominates), (3) a balance between the different components of each religion occurs. For the third possibility, Manichaeism was given as an example by Colpe. He then further expands on the originality of Mani’s doctrine, stating that Manichaeism was “a unique system in which previously existing linkages were interrelated in an entirely new and original way”. It seems evident that Colpe himself believes that Manichaeism is syncretic. The linkages between the different religious doctrines is astonishing and extremely obvious. However, I wonder if Manichaeism could fall under the subheading “addition” in Colpe’s Syncretism. Is Manichaeism a religion which embodies many different components and thereby is syncretic, or is it the combination of particular elements but not the absorption of all these elements (addition)? Is syncretism very similar to or basically the same as addition? What are the differences between the two, if there are any?

One such foreign religion was Nestorian Christianity. In the reading Missiological Reflections on Nestorian Christianity in China During the Tang Dynasty, I found it particularly interesting what different historians and missiologists thought of Nestorian Christianity and its “impure” teachings. Latourette suggests, “the Nestorians…in trying to clothe their faith in dress familiar to the Chinese, may have sacrificed in part its distinctiveness and defeated their own aim.” Immediately Sharf’s article came to mind; his notion examining religious doctrine in terms of social, cultural and spatio-temporal influences would nullify the significance of Latourette’s claim. To expect that Christianity is practiced in the same way with the exact same interpretations of the religion in so many different parts of the world seems naive. As mentioned in lecture, Western Christianity looks markedly different than Christianity in parts of Africa, in the Middle East, etc. Along with this, Bundy points out that Christian concepts and terms accepted today in the Western world, such as messiah and baptism, where actually adopted in early Christianity in an effort to make the Christian religion “comprehensible and acceptable within the Roman empire.” This illustrates that Western Christian terminology used today was actually adopted for the purpose of “clothing” Christian faith in Roman dress.

On a different note, after reading the story written by an examination candidate (as a warming-the-exam paper) I was mesmerized by the fanciful way of life during the Tang dynasty. The young man who lives through various different social roles, marries a prostitute, and in the end returns back to his “intended” role in society (as an official; like his father) was quite interesting. Especially intriguing for me was the interpretation of the story, one that suggests that social change is rare (in the prostitutes case) and normally one will end up in the correct status no matter what they encounter (the young man). A little earlier on in the reading I was especially fascinated by the freedom of women who so elegantly (at least in my imagination) would gallop on horses with beautiful draped clothing in an attempt to find a suitable husband. Just imagining such freedom, joy, and beauty was quite enchanting.

This construction of Buddhist dogma is evident in the evolution of the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions; two of which are very similar yet seem to encompass many different beliefs. It was very interesting to read how the Hinayana ‘disproved’ (in a sense) the Mahayana religion insisting that “it was created by beings who were demonic in order to deceive the obtuse and those with evil minds.” As a rebuttal to this claim, the Lotus Sutra was written and explained that the Buddha actually did not reveal the intensity and difficulty of Buddhism for he knew that actual Buddhist practice is too difficult to adopt for the majority. This was explained through parables of which seemed to concentrate on a wise and rich man (the Buddha) who unveiled the truth to those surrounding him that were unaware.

As I read through Xuanzang’s journey through India, I began to realize that his quest for an answer to the Buddhist religion, as a scholar, had changed dramatically when he became a convert “expressing his own religious feelings.” Then I remembered our discussion concerning insight and religious belief; is it fare to assume that Xuanzang had a better understanding of Buddhism as a scholar by believing and therefore partaking in religious ritual? Or did his immediate conversion make no difference?

It was interesting to see the overall debate concentrating on the monotheistic (or polytheistic) nature of Zoroastrianism. It was proposed by Thomas Hyde that indeed Zoroaster believed in only one eternal God and that he preached these beliefs. However, this was contrasted by Anquetil du Perron’s translations of the Avesta and Pahlavi manuscripts which revealed that Zoroastrianism was polytheistic and each God was linked with specific ritual practice. This, though, was not the case for Zoroaster did truly believe in one God, Ahura Mazda, and six other great beings which Ahura Mazda had evoked. These six beings were indeed worshiped, as each one has an aspect of God.

While reading the translations of some Zoroastrian texts, I was most compelled by The Cow’s Lament (Yasna 29). I found myself asking if the cow was merely a symbol of helplessness in a world with pain and suffering and if so why was a cow ‘chosen’ to encompass this helpless being? Was it simply because many of the Zoroastrians, after migration, were farmers and herders? And then I wondered further why Zarathushtra was portrayed as weak, so much so that the cow did not express happiness although it was removed from a hostile environment.