Reading Response 5

This week's chapters were particularly interesting, given the introduction and elaboration of the Islamic narrative. Again, Armstrong illustrates the adaptive nature of religion, carrying over, tweaking and adopting aspects of previous religions. Islam represents the continuance of a different trend, though. Starting with Judaism's adaptation to place the sacred in the human sphere, the subsequent iterations of Abrahamic religions each increased the religion's respective universality and relevance in the profane aspect of life. Christianity furthered the transition towards incorporating the sacred into the human sphere by emphasizing a humanist based theology. Furthering this notion, Islam relocated the profane to the sacred space, connecting the two. Previous religions saw adherence as an aspect of a healthy life; however, material and non-material aspects were regulated by strict boundaries. Islam's infusion of dogma and profane tradition was revolutionary; it created a new frame through which to view daily actions.

I very much enjoy this history aspect of this book, because it is very important to recognize that these religions are not acting independently; rather, they are components of cultural and political happenings. Specifically, the aforementioned religions' adaptive ability and evolutionary nature is important to note when considering the region's political history. Removing religion from a specific cultural context and universalizing the dogma is an extremely powerful tool for building cohesion across a kingdom or empire. In this context, symbolized sacred locations are used to create consensus among a diverse population, as an empire would have. The community has a created common history. Creating uniformity among diverse populations is essential for maintaining the cohesion of an empire or kingdom. Furthermore, Islam's development only strengthened the political power of the state, by injecting theological, ruling-class determined perspectives into ordinary life. Of course, not every citizen is a strict adherent to religious (and thus, state) values and mores; however, this movement still represents a substantial increase in political power potential. This trend also represents a strong historical determinant. The rapid and extremely vast growth of Islamic based empires in the first millennium, combined with the religion's intense and pervasive nature still resonates very strongly in contemporary cultures.

On an unrelated note, I am glad Armstrong devoted elaboration to the (relative) tolerance of Islam in the described period. Where a change in the dominant religion often previously meant forced conversion, exile or death, Islam represented revolutionary trends. Too often the contemporary Arab-Israeli conflict is described as an irreconcilable aspect of 6000 years of conflict, when that is simply not true.