what defines a religion? (in particular: Islam)

Great Debates
1

Around page 2 of this thread, «Why did Islam succeed where Christianity failed?, a debate started on what constitutes Islam. The main thrust of the argument can be summarized in this way (IMHO):

Poster A - Islamic Law, the Shari’ah, contains these rules, which are practised by many muslims. Therefore those rules are part of what constitutes the Islam religion.

Poster B - Not so! It doesn’t matter that a practice is common amongst many muslims, it’s only part of Islam if it can be found in Islam’s holy text, the Quran.

Of course this argument can be extended to other religions also, but the original debate concerned Islam.

(I am posting this thread here in the hope of putting the original conversation “back on track”.)

moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»

2

My opinion:

If a practice is accepted and observed by most adherents to a religion, then it becomes de facto part of that religion.

For example, most Christians declare polygamy to be sinful, therefore one of the characteristics of Christianity is the lack of polygamy (or polyandry), even though there is no passage in the Bible that explicitly forbids it to my knowledge (doubtless someone will come along and find a quotation to prove me wrong.) I bring up an example in re: Christianity because I’m not that familiar with Islam, but the original conversation concerned Islam.

3

In the 1870s, Sir Edward Tylor, one of the early anthropologists in England, divised this definition of religion (paraphrased):

How a people define their relationship with the Divine.

This works pretty well with most Western religions. There are problems when you start using it for Eastern faiths, say Buddhism. Unfortunately, no one’s been able to come up with anything better.

4

Neat question, Arnold! Just as a thought, it’s my understanding that Sunni Moslems accept the Quran and a collection of originally oral teachings of Mohammed as bases for their beliefs. (I think the collection is called the Shari’a, but my memory here is foggy.) Adherents of Shia, on the other hand, are sola Scriptura, with the proviso that it be interpreted by Ayatollahs, and with the sole additional clause that only descendants of Ali are entitled to the leadership role(s).

Similar questions can be asked regarding Christianity and Judaism. And one may note the similarity of disagreement regarding authoritative source(s) as between Sunni/Shia and Catholicism/Protestantism in the former. (You don’t see too many Sadducees around these days to claim, “Only the Torah!”)

I confess to being totally baffled by the Mahayana vs. the various “lesser vehicle” traditions in Buddhism, but there almost seems a parallel there, with the latter holding more strongly to the teachings of the historical Buddha and the former elaborating on them in an intricate mythology and soteriological structure.

Freyr? Other students of culture and religion? Is this the case in other faiths (extant or defunct?)

5

PolyC, I think you have it backwards. Theravada Buddhism is based most directly upon the teaching the Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) thru the Pali texts.

Mahayana Buddishm evolved as it migrated north and eastward into present day Tibet, China and eventually Japan.

I’m trying to remember more from my Asian Religions class of many years ago. If any of the Buddhists in the TM can expand or correct my points, I’d be happy to hear it.

6

Thanks, Freyr. That’s what I remembered and tried to say – but it sounds like I didn’t make myself particularly clear.

7

Your knowledge of religion is doubtless greater than mine, Polycarp. Here’s my understanding of Islamic law (Shari’ah) as it relates to Sunni muslims vs. Shi’ite muslims (I think my view pretty much agrees with what you’re saying):

Sunni muslims say that the Shari’ah is derived from the Qu’ran and also from traditional customs of the original tribes that practiced Islam. In general, Sunni muslims believe that the consensus of the majority is an acceptable method for determining what is acceptable behaviour, stipulating of course that no acceptable behaviour can be in direct contradiction with the Qu’ran or Shari’ah.

On the other hand, Shi’ite muslims say that the Shari’ah is derived from the Qu’ran and its interpretation by religious leaders (imams). The shi’ite schism started as part of the hostility between an early Caliph (one of the prophet Muhammad’s son-in-laws) and other arabic leaders, with the supporters of this particular Caliph becoming the Shi’ites. There have been only a small number of historical imams (twelve?) with current religious leaders (mutjahids = Shi’ite divine leaders) interpreting law under the guidance of the imams (through revelation I suppose.)

To get back to the original question, I guess my definition of what is part of the religion is closer to how Sunni muslims view their religion, though my definition is of course not identical to theirs - I’m saying that what the majority of the believers do is part of what constitutes the religion.

8

P.S. I forgot to mention the other thing I know about Shari’ah - it’s a religious code of law that is only practised legally in the Arabic peninsula, most other muslim countries have a more or less “westernized” code of law where, for example, the rules governing evidence are substantially different. In those other countries Shari’ah rules are mostly used for family law and not criminal law.

9

Polycarp scripsit:

No, but you do get Karaites.

10

It seems to me that to ask " what defines Islam " is similar to asking “what defines Christianity”. The definition of Christianity would have to include those issues and only those issues that are agreed on by all the various Christian groups. Any issues that are believed by only certain groups could only define those groups.For example, all Christian groups do not believe in transubstantiation ,so such a belief could not define Christianity.It would however, be part of what defines Catholicism.
Back to Islam - Poster A’s position that a rule is part of Islam because it’s in the Shari’ah can only be correct if all the divisions of Islam accept the Shari’ah. If there is a sect that only sees the Quran as authoritative,then poster B’s postition is closer to correct. In fact, I think it’s likely that neither position is quite correct, since I’m sure that the interpretations of the Quran differ from group to group ( as does interpretation of the Bible among various Christian denominations} a more accurate way of defining Islam would be to specify beliefs, rules etc. that are common to all the groups.

11

Re: Buddhism

My limited reading on the subject lead me to believe that the split was not so much scriptural as practical – what you had to do to gain Enlightenment.

Re: Sunni / Shiite

While Arnold, to my knowledge, is correct, my understanding was that the split had less to do with doctrine than with politics: whether or not one accepts the legitimacy of all four rashidun – the four “rightly guided” caliphs who were the companions and immediate successors of the Prophet Muhammed. Sunnis (the majority of modern Muslims) accept all four. Shiites believe that the first three were more-or-less userpers, since they were not direct descendants of Muhammed.

Re: Proposition B

Without necessarily agreeing with the position, I think we can understand it better by comparing it to gravity.

Gravity has existed ever since time began. Animals didn’t understand it; early and classical civilizations didn’t understand it – it was just there. Newton comes along and writes a few equations describing it. Einstein comes along and writes a few more equations, describing it better. Quantum physicist are writing even newer equations as we speak, and getting closer and closer to a full understanding of gravity.

(Obviously, I’m skipping a lot of details here…)

The point is, gravity hasn’t changed; just our understanding of it. And if tomorrow some scientist were to come up with the final, ultimate answer, it wouldn’tmean that gravity has suddenly started existing at that moment, or has suddenly changed in some way.

The same with religion under Proposition B. The “Truth” (whatever it may be) is eternal, and is always there. (“Is now as it was in the beginning and forever shall be, yadda yadda yadda.”) Mankind’s understanding of the Truth varies. Different religions are closer or further from it. Different sects within a religion may be closer or further. But they are all striving for that Truth.

So, when proposition B speaks of a “religion,” it refers to that eternal nugget of Truth. When proposition A speaks of a religion, it speaks of the doctrines and practices apeople uses to get at that Truth.

Thus, adherents of both positions may be completely right, and still argue right past one another. :wink:

12

I would disagree with this point. This way of thinking would suggest that religion follows the people, rather than the people following the religion. If people deviate from their religion, their religion does not (or at least should not) shift to accomodate them!

This is one of the strengths of Islam. It is more or less completely unchanged since it’s birth. It has very clear views on certain issues, and these have not changed at all over the course of time whereas today’s society’s attitude towards those issues have. Society is changing everyday. Nowadays divorce, homosexuals and top female executives (to name but a few) are pretty common place and we accept it. Many many years ago they were unheard of. Society’s view on such issues has changed (for the better or worse is up to the individual) but I don’t think religion should change to accomodate what the majority of it’s followers think about a certain issue. After all, they are following the religion, not the other way around.

I don’t think religion can be shaped and evolved over time, because the end result is not the same as the original which was the real religion. In the case of Islam, everything that it stood for back when it was revealed, it still stands for today. Nothing has changed. You cannot define a religion by the actions of it’s followers. You have to look at the religion itself and it’s source (in the case of Islam, the Qur’an) and find out what the religion is. If everyone got the wrong end of the stick and started to walk down the wrong path, just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right. To suggest as such is complete ludicroucy.