Blog #10

The Tribe has always been an important concept in Arabian and Islamic history, creating divisions among its dwellers and followers. How has this caused problems in the history of Islam?

The question, as posed, would suggest that the issue of tribal difference is somehow a Muslim, or Arabian problem. This is just false. While Arabia did have tribes, tribal conflict had been, and continues to be, a problem all over. From the Africans to the Asians tribal warfare and conflict were very prevalent. The fact that some say Mohamed never had a miracle and thus was not a prophet is a reasonable statement. However, what he could do, was resolve tribal conflicts, which was close to miraculous in ancient Arabia. Just as Ghengis Kahn rose to power uniting tribes of the Steppe, Mohamed united tribes of the Middle East. Unfortunately, that could not last. Tribes are formed for a reason. Protection, power, greed etc... So as soon as the great uniter died, Islam quickly split back into a divided group. With some believing the Islam was passed to Mohammed's family, and some believing it was passed to the elders closest to Mohamed. Not only did this lead to individual tribes siding with either the Sunnis or the Shi'ites but they united under these new groups to fight with the other. This led to tribal wars on a tribal level as well as tribal warfare on a larger, spiritual level.

The question might also suggest that this problem is in the past. Instead, the problem is still playing out in places like Iraq. Much unbeknownst to a certain Presidential candidate, the two sects of Islam are still duking it out in Iraq. Saddam Hussein took the Sunni minority and put them in powerful positions in his government. He did this to play off of the tribal mentality and rivalries of the two sects (the minority would not want to fall out of power since they were used to being oppressed by the majority). Now that the government has fallen and Democracy is (feebly attempting to) coming out the two sects are again fighting. We have seen this on large levels and small scale levels throughout the history of the middle east and it is one of the many reasons that peace in the middle east (and in Islam) is only a far-fetched dream.

Blog #9

How has the religious history of India influenced India’s tradition of non-violence?      Religion, for the most part, preaches tolerance and peace. While we have seen many political and militaristic leaders abuse religion for the justification of war, when truly followed, religion intends for peace. Religions such as Islam, which has been used recently by radical Jihad terrorists as justification for their acts of terror, do not endorse violence. Jihad, which is just a small subsection of a sect of Islam does not preach violence. Instead it talks of finding inner peace and balance and turning to the sword only in self, or direct religious, defense. It is not only Islam that has taken up religious wars, in fact nearly every religion is guilty of some religious crusade. Part of India's success in fully embracing Hinduism as a peaceful religion falls at the feet of Ghandi. While his teachings and actions were attached to Hinduism, they could just have easily as been not. Just as most religious violence is not actually religious at it's core. Ghandi cemented the relationship between peace and Hinduism. In doing so he turned India, a country with an overwhelming Hindu population into what could be considered a peaceful country. However, even in turning the religion into one of peace, the country still has a ways to go. India and Pakistan have been using military force to try and intimidate the other in the conflict over Kashmir a region that borders both India and Pakistan for a very long time. This pissing match goes against Ghandi's teachings of peaceful protest and objection and makes one wonder, whether, India is really that much more peaceful than anyone else.

Blog entry #8

Can migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants?

While a simplistic question, I will attempt to give an unsimplistic answer. Of course the land receiving immigrants can benefit from their arrival. What does it mean to "benefit" the people/land? America has gotten a great influx of cheap labor from Mexico. This has allowed many Central Valley and other farmers and construction companies to get cheap labor and make a bigger profit. So it is definitely benefiting them, but what about the locals who used to pick the food, it does not benefit them. In the long run, most immigrants offer much needed diversity and a new perspective on issues facing any society. So yes, the people and land that receive migrating peoples can benefit from their arrival. That being said, most of the benefits they receive can be looked at as bad things as well. Cheaper labor accelerates industry... Good for the companies and maybe the economy as a whole, but what about those forced out of work? Immigrants provide new perspectives and may even rise to the top of a professional field. This breaks down xenophobia and offers new insight into certain topics. However, in the moment it often increases xenophobia and the new ideas can be shunned. There are many examples of this that I could go into, but I will leave by just answering the question: migrations can have a positive impact on the people/land receiving the immigrants.