Islam & The Silk Road (Entry #10)

Islam has become one of the dominant religions in today's world. For Islam, this entire world is seen as a "sphere of Islam" and therefore, its spread throughout the world is of importance. Islam takes a lot of its influences from Judaism and Christianity. These traditions' people are validated in Islam as "People of the Book" and moreover, they're known as "dhimmis", which are protected people. With this title came a promise of freedom to practice one's own religion on the condition that the Christians and Jewish disciples paid tax. Personally, I found this harsh since these three traditions share so many similarities so I didn't understand why it was seen alright to impose them with taxes in exchange for protection and freedom of practice. I know they all did exist with one another peacefully to a certain point but it struck odd to me that one tradition would still want the title of dominance, even though they all accepted one another.

What I found interesting with Islam in Spain were the three categories of sects that existed. The first were called muwallad and they embraced Islam and the Arabic language. The mazarrab were "Arabized Christians" that adopted Arab language and culture but not Islam. Lastly, there were the Christians that remained Latin in culture and language. The last group was in constant competition with Islam to regain Christianity's superiority in Spain. This created tension and it made me think again how their similarities should have been a strong unifier between these two traditions. Moreover, it made me think about how these two religions didn't like it when another imposed their beliefs on them yet it seemed perfectly fine and even seen as God's will for them to spread and enforce their religion. I can only imagine what the chaos might have been like with traditions fighting back and forth, doing the same thing they both detested from the other...imposing beliefs that were believed to be the "truth". It also reminded me of the Mongols and how they would force foreigners to follow their customs because they believed that was the only way to live life.

With respect to West and East Africa, Islam's presence was intriguing. Preachers first went into these regions to spread Islam and then jurists were the second Islamic influence, which finalized its presence into the state and legal system. Their methods to convert people into Islam is also interesting as they would use the "local culture" to explain things like dietary rules; so they used not Islam but local laws.

Overall, it was amazing to see how Islam was adopted in various regions through different methods. For example, whereas in China it most likely settled there because of Muslim merchants, in Central Asia, Islam spread through persuasion and usage of a one faith and world view viewpoint. I'm not sure if these different methods were done on purpose but if so, I think it's very ingenious. The Muslim scholars/teachers used many methods because they must have realized that specific techniques were required for them to be successful and one method alone could not work for everyone.

Additionally, in the first article, it was stated that Islam perhaps wasn't as successful in making its way into China since it was "advanced" and a close-knit society. So what is the author implying here? That Islam's establishment along the Silk Road was a result of the influences targeting the weak and ignorant? Or was it because some areas were more politically disheveled, which made it easier for Islam to be adopted by the people?

Moreover, examples of syncretism also occurred like in India, where Muslims took in the caste system because of Hinduism's presence. On a side note, one of the statements made of Guru Nanak being a follower of Kabir is incorrect. From the Sikhi viewpoint, Guru Nanak never followed anyone or anything but the Sikhi life and the belief in one God and states it himself on many occasions. While Kabir's hymns are incorporated into the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Gurus never validated any individuals like Kabir as an influence on Sikhi or as a leader figure. From my understanding, such statements sprout from the tension between the Sikh and Muslim community and the need to demean the other to obtain dominance.

Lastly, reading on Islam's projection within society was disappointing. It really did shine some light on things I didn't think of before. While other traditions have respectable and prominent figures, such as the Dalai Llama, Islam is considered to be portrayed through the worst illustrations. But I also think that the prejudices against Islam spills over into other cultures and religions. For example, the turban is now linked to terrorism and anyone wearing it is considered to be a Muslim who is a terrorist. I think it's unfortunate that the actions of a group of individuals are placed on the entire community.

In the end, every tradition sees other religions as different and there's a lot of judgment attached. Instead of getting to know one another and finding the core similarities to our beliefs, there is a competition to become superior and widespread. While it would be amazing to see all traditions coexisting with one another, I think it's a bit difficult to reach such a state if all there ever exists is the need to be right or domineering.