Author: Andre Coleman

To understand this article The Case for Contamination, it helps to know that Kwame Anthony Appiah is an advocate of Cosmopolitanism, a global ethics which aims to establish universality and shared values as a determinant or common denominator.(Appiah book, 2006). Cosmopolitanism is still a brewing concept, although the idea has been traced to the cynic Diogenes of Ancient Greece (410 B.C.) who claimed world citizenship and to the 2nd century stoic Hierocles who drew the Concentric Circle Model of the “self” opening out for concern to family, local group, citizens, countrymen and humanity. Whether it is simply an idea, an ethical way-of-life or a movement, Cosmopolitanism is still to gain wider acceptance by present-day thinkers, moralists, and ideologists. In his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers,” Appiah clarifies that Cosmopolitanism is basically an ethical principle. Still, he forewarns, not every ethical principle, inclusive of religion, which claims universality, is Cosmopolitanism. To understand this mind-set, Appiah’s aforesaid article deserves examination.

Analysis

Unlike his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Stranger, the article under consideration focuses less on Cosmopolitanism and more on the phenomenon of cultural change. Through personally drawn examples, expressed in a descriptive narrative way, Appiah shows that cultural assimilation takes various forms. And in his own home place in Asante, Ghana, Appiah finds exotic traditional customs being observed by fellow-Ghanaians, even as they show signs of modern 21st century living, wearing Western suits and using technology gadgets like cellphones. And while rooted in their traditions, Appiah comments, Ghanaians have established connections with the West, and such is the case with his Ghana president who is a Catholic and an Oxford graduate, while Ghandian youths are students and working immigrants in London, the United States, Japan and other developed countries in the globe. Appiah notes that there are cultural purists, who advocate the preservation of pristine cultural values and traditions. However, this attitude does not conform to the ethics of globalization or Cosmopolitanism. For him the appropriate object of moral concern in Cosmopolitanism is the individual, not whole nations, tribes or peoples. Each and everyone is a citizen of the world, but the world is not closer to Cosmopolitanism, he adds, when homogeneity means only superficiality or artificiality in cultural changes. He describes how common it is for people to change in ways they like “inventing new forms of differences: new hairstyles, new slang, even new religions” (Appiah article, 2006). Also, some changes may be liked, while others disliked. For example, the influence of global economy may be a problem to those who have to adjust crops and livelihood, although acceptable even exciting for the well-placed who find opportunities in global change. In the case of religion, Christianization may have succeeded by way of mass conversions, but some elements of folk religious practices continue to prevail showing the fact that Christianity has been accepted in external form, but not in essence.

In this article, Appiah treats religion in two distinct ways: First as a cultural artifice, subject to change as any other, and secondly as a dangerous new form of anti-cosmopolitanism. In the first form, religion plays the role of a cultural artifact, which undergoes change, and evokes different responses, good or bad. In this way, religious cultural change is like other cultural changes that are brought about by increased globalization of ideas. It plays a common role as other aspects of culture, such as dress, language or custom. It simply affects change, and some people like that, some do not.

Appiah thinks that diversity in culture, including religious traditions, is an acceptable situation. However, the process of cultural change which creates only one cultural mode is unacceptable. This is so, since artificial cultural diversity and homogeneity may actually be an entrapment which prevents man’s evolving into a higher nature. Rather than artificiality and homogeneity, diversity may be more conducive to man’s nature to attain the maturation of his mental, moral and aesthetic potentials, as well as to man’s getting a fair share in happiness in life.

For Appiah, religion can play a second and more dangerous role. He cites the neo-fundamentalist idea of a global utopia, which can be a problem to humankind. In his book, Appriah explains that a religious utopia displays a facade of faith in human dignity and shared ideals with people in many countries (2006). However, behind this facade is intolerance which can embolden utopian ideologues to make war against any nation that goes in the way of their sense of universal justice. For Appiah, whenever religion is upheld with a fundamentalist attitude to culture, the imperialist disposition is unleashed. He drew similarities from sinister ideologues like Marx, Mao and Pol Pot who used the name of universal humanity, but who also sought to stamp out religion.

Alternative approach

Appiah’s portrayal of the roles religions play in cultural change contributes to his aim to advance Cosmopolitanism along substantial cultural change that advances global citizenry in the world. He appears too defensive however, of Christian fundamentalism and centuries of hybridization which, for example, transformed through the centuries the historical Nazarene from a beloved teacher to a Pauline liberator of the gentiles, a God-Word among Gnostics, a God-Son in Roman Christianity, the Pantacrator or Omnipotent in Greek Christian Orthodoxy and many other forms comprising what scholars consider as the mythical Jesus. Artifice in religious cultural change may be blamed but the imperialistic connivance by state and religion is more likely to the cause of prolonged religious separation, bias and violence in human history. Thus, the barriers to genuine Cosmopolitanism and universalism appear more formidable than it seems. Even today, while radical fundamentalism is worrisome, institutional differences among religions are the main barriers to Cosmopolitanism. Ethical advocates like Appiah may call for tolerance and respect for the freedom of individuals to make their own choices, but the world will remain divided among hundreds of institutional churches and thousands of religious denominations, sects and cults in the world.

The historical Jesus was faced by the dilemma of separation among orthodox Jews and the unorthodox Samaritans, and was asked outright whether Jews should worship in Jerusalem or Samaria. To the surprise of his listeners, Jesus said it is in neither of the two places will Jews and non-Jews worship God. Rather than worship localized in places, Jesus predicted that in a future time worship will be done only “in spirit and truth.” He may have spoken his mind on Cosmopolitanism.

Conclusion

Cosmopolitan advocates speak in various ways, but they all agree on the need for non-curtailment of cultural freedom. Within this cultural freedom based on political, economic, religious, circumstances, autonomy should be respected in order to provide the foundation for otherness. Otherness is comprised by cultural differences in aims, structures, and other differences. I argue, however, that while religion is situated within cultures, it is also innate in nature, which has been awakening through the centuries in defining truth, knowledge, acceptance and other facets of human harmony with life.

Religious cosmopolitanism? It is an idea that already finds concrete application in the United Nations and international agencies, foundations, and organizations. The man of the world actually came during the ancient times of Greek Stoicism, but his message was far beyond his time and above the grasp of the people of his days. Through the centuries state-church imperialism held its reign and the “his rule, his religion,” principle established empires, kingdoms and fiefdoms. The social and political landscape continued to change until the advent of Humanism in the fifteenth century, paving the way for the Reformation and the Period of Enlightenment which broke Christendom and ushered in modern society. After the industrial and technological revolutions, we may have an emerging phase of civilization favorable to cosmopolitan identity. However, as Cosmopolitanism makes a demand for estrangement of one’s culture and history, the political system of nation-states may take more time to change. The fundamentalist adherence to religious culture that foments global terror is also especially problematic today. This situation makes it more difficult to say if ethical universality is near. In the end, the answer may be found in the words of the mystic George Macdonald: “Our consciousness will not be rebuilt in a night. It takes a long time to finish the new creation of this redemption.”

In a way, all humans are divine because we were made in the likeness of God. If we look at Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Also, look at how the verse right before this one starts off; Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likenessaˆ¦..So we were made in the image of God, so in a sense all humans are somewhat divine. However, that being said, the texts we read this week all had a divine character, mostly God himself, interacting in them.

In all of the texts we read this week, the main divine character was God himself. In Genesis, God creates mankind in the likeness of himself and then he forms special bonds with some of his creations. There is not enough room to talk about all of them is this essay so let us just take a look at Noah and Abraham.

The relationship between God and Noah is from Genesis 6:8 to 9:28. It is pretty much a one sided relationship in which God comes to Noah and tells him to do certain things. God seen that the wickedness of man was great on earth and decided to wash them away, all except for Noah and his family. In Genesis 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis 6:13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh; behold I will destroy them with the earth. Then God told Noah to make an ark and how specifically to make it. Genesis 7:1 Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. There was a flood for forty days in which everything on earth was washed away. Genesis 8:15 Then God said to Noah, “Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your son and your sons wives with you.” God told him to let all the animals in the ark free so that they may multiply. Noah built an altar to the Lord and the Lord said he would never curse the ground because of man again. Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to him, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” God also made covenant to Noah and his family that never again shall a flood be used to destroy the earth.

Next, there is also the relationship of God and Abraham. The life of Abraham is Genesis 11:26-25:10 of the Hebrew Bible. Abraham’s original name was Abram. In Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your fathers house to the land that I will show you.” So Abram took his wife and his nephew and started travelling. He traveled in many different directions and to many people when the Lord came to him again. Genesis 13:15 for all the land in which you see will give to you and your descendent forever.” God also came to Abram through visions. Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, “Fear not Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” God came Abraham many times and many ways and influenced and changed his life greatly. Abraham never questioned the voice of God, even when God told him to leave his country and his kin. Abraham always put his trust in the Lord.

The next part of our assigned reading this week that had the inclusion of a divine character was The Bhagavad-Gita. There are four main characters in the Bhagavad-Gita. Lord Krishna, who is its author and hero, and the three other main characters.

Lord Krishna is said to be the human avatar of Visnu. Visnu is the god who keeps order in the universe. So in this story we still have a god (divine character) interacting with humans in some way. These three other main characters can be used to represent three methods in which man can receive divine knowledge from God.

Arjuna represents method number one. He receives his knowledge using the direct method. He is one of the few people in our human history who have ever stood face to face and conversed with God. He got to speak to God personally. He is the direct descendent of the Gita.

Sanjaya can be used to represent method number two. He received divine knowledge through his advance psychic abilities. He received the entire Gita through his mind. Not only did he have perfect psychic powers, but he was also a “pure” soul that the Lord seen fit to use as a vehicle to transport knowledge to Dhrtarastra.

Dhrtarastra, the blind king, gets his knowledge through method number three. The most common way. He received his knowledge from another person. Dhrtarastra received his knowledge from Sanjaya who had already received his knowledge from God. His blindness in the Gita can be symbolic for his ignorance or spiritual blindness. You can say he was a tainted soul, too driven by his desires and very deeply attached to his family and Kingdom. His blind passion for the throne is what leads to the battle of Mhabharita.

All of these people can be defined as divine characters because of Gods influence in their lives. God has come to them in in dreams, visions, prophecies, or miracles and as a result of that divine power has changes their lives.

Let us take a look at the core value of Respect at Saint Leo University;

Respect-Animated in the spirit of Jesus Christ, we value all individuals’ unique talents, respect their dignity and strive to foster their commitment to excellence in our work. Our community’s strength depends on the unity and diversity of our people, on the free exchange of ideas and on learning, living and working harmoniously.

When reading religious texts and stories from other religions we need to keep Saint Leo University’s core value of Respect in mind. Because these texts and stories may not be our own religious beliefs, but they are someone else, and may be very important to others. Therefore they should be respected.

Though no tradition can be considered representative of all religions, this essay will focus on Islam and whether it should be considered ‘bad’ for women’s development and the pursuit of gender equality. Although focussing on Islam, it will become clear that there is no single manifestation of this religion and, therefore, some interpret it in a way which is bad for women’s development. The recent shooting of 14 year old Malala Yousafzai for promoting the education of girls in Pakistan is one of many shocking occurrences used by the Western media to paint a sombre picture of women in Muslim countries (BBC 2012). The essay will begin by demonstrating that the literature surrounding this topic leads us to assume that there is one model of ‘women’s development’ and one model of Islam and that the two are at odds. Next, it will argue that this assumption is the result of Islamophobia and more specifically gendered Islamophobia which has increased since the September 11th attacks (Zine 2006). Gendered Islamophobia relates to the negative stereotypes presented by Western media and institutions of vulnerable veiled women (ibid.). The primary purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that Islam has been considered ‘bad for women’s development’ because it seems to contradict Western ideas about gender equality, but that this is only part of the picture. It will highlight the fact that there has been a rejection, from within Islam, of the fundamentalist Islamic perception of women. It will argue that Islam has the potential to be ‘good’ for women’s development as Muslim women have been establishing new spaces of discussion and opportunity within their religion and are fighting against the negative stereotypes placed upon them.

In recent decades, the Western perception of Islam has been almost entirely influenced by the increase in what the West describes as ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’. Although I acknowledge that views within the Western world are not uniform, the term will be used to describe the mainstream political and developmental discourses on Islam and Muslim women. ‘Fundamentalism’ is a delicate term which refers to the conservative, apparently misogynistic interpretation of the Qur’an and the enforcement of Islamic law, Shari’ah. Shari’ah has increasingly been used to justify the oppression of women in all areas of their lives and child marriage and the veil are two of the more visible examples (Othman 2006; Hopkins and Patel 2006).The conservative interpretations of the Qur’an directly oppose traditional Western development discourse, exemplified in the universal aims of the United Nations’ (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and Millennium Development Goal 3 (MDG 3) to ‘Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women’ (United Nations date unknown a; United Nations date unknown b). Feminist notions of women’s rights based on equality between men and women are central to the development of women and bills and policies such as CEDAW and MDG 3, regardless of religion. It is clear that this Western approach is at odds with the treatment of women required by some conservative forms of Islam. This leads to the assumption that Islam, as a whole, is a definitive barrier against women’s access to human rights, such as the right to freedom, the right to education and the right to safety (United Nations 1995a) and is therefore ‘bad for women’s development’.

However, the views traditionally held by the West are criticised for a variety of reasons and are, in fact, thought to be detrimental to Muslim women. Western policy depends on a simplistic and over-generalised version of Islam based on the culturally-rooted traditions of the dominant minority which are seen as the defining feature of this religion. It therefore employs secular, feminist ideals in order attempt to free women from this supposedly patriarchal religion (Tomalin forthcoming). Although some Muslims are fighting against the veil, others challenge Western ideology and defend their right to continue with what the West would conceive as ‘radical’ Islamic practices. They claim that the Western model itself has created oppressive roles for women by reducing women to their physical appearance and they believe that they could choose to cover themselves in order to be defined by their brains, not their bodies (Afshar 2000.) They challenge the generalised Western notion that the veil is an unequivocal sign of oppression and argue instead that they are examples of a woman’s agency over how her body is to be represented, which frees them from sexual objectification (ibid.). They view any opposition to this choice as an attack on their civil liberties and human rights (Critelli 2010). Nevertheless, this approach does not challenge the root problem of the objectification of women. These women are merely resigned to the fact that gender relations will always be based on sexuality and it is up to women to sacrifice their freedom in order to be protected from men. This does show, however, just how complex Islam and Islamic culture are and highlights the need for dialogue and cooperation rather than simply viewing Islam through a western lens.

Islam is unlike religions which have developed in the West, such as Christianity, as it has no one authority that monopolises religious meaning (Barlas 2004). It is a multifaceted religion which draws on more than the culture and traditions it is famed for and the Qur’anic scriptures and legal interpretations of Shari’ah law also play crucial roles in the lives of Muslims. Islam cannot easily be conceptualised and, therefore, Western institutions fail in their attempt to do so in such a simplistic way. The absence of a critical attempt to come to terms with Islam as a heterogeneous tradition in development discourse, and the universality of bills such as CEDAW and MDG 3, deepen pre-existing inequalities and strip Muslims of their own vision of women’s rights (Bradley 2011).Traditional feminist development appears to offer no way to achieve human rights and wellbeing for women other than through the Western model, which implies that women in the West are liberated and Muslim women are trapped. This approach is destined to fail since it alienates Muslim women who may be equally against radical ideologies but are not willing to reject their religious identity (Jawad 1998). Some Muslims view traditional development as a threat to Islam and this has produced increased hostility towards Western institutions (Adamu 1999). It is counterproductive to continue to view Islam in this way, as it will only ever be portrayed as a negative force against women and prevent any meaningful cooperative action from being taken.

Although there is a tendency to misrepresent or ignore Islam in the field of development, some organisations are beginning to engage with this religion. Oxfam is a secular organisation that arranged two workshops in 2004 and 2006 to determine the opportunities found within Islam (Hopkins and Patel 2006). These workshops confirmed that the stereotypical portrayals of Muslim women as helpless victims often make them invisible in the process of development. Moreover, international human rights treaties are viewed as a display of Western arrogance and are dismissed for being culturally irrelevant and incompatible with Islam (ibid.). Therefore, Oxfam is approaching development through the eyes of the recipients and use quotes from the Qur’an to try to prove that their vision of women’s rights and equality are compatible with the teachings of Islam. In addition, the secular organisation the Women’s Action Forum (WAF) in Pakistan is increasingly engaging with conservative versions of religion, as they consider this the only way to truly promote change in Pakistan (Pearson and Tomalin 2007). Including Islam in their fight for women’s rights shows that they are engaging with women on their level and in a language they understand, rather than undermining their culture using Western, secular methods. Both Oxfam and WAF are open about this engagement being a strategy. However, it is not clear whether they are doing so because it is the only way to undermine the oppressive dimensions of Islam, or whether they actually believe that Islam can contribute to women’s rights. Nevertheless, it is clear that both of these organisations understand that issues of faith and gender are intrinsically linked and that to criticise Islam as ‘bad for women’s development’, would be to ignore the reality of Muslim women’s lives.

The notion of ‘Islamic feminism’ is used to describe the way in which women are using aspects of their religion to counter the Islamist patriarchal interpretations of conservative Muslims and the gendered Islamophobia these have created in the West (Kirmani and Phillips 2011). Islamic feminists reject the imposition of Western, secular approaches which they see as reflecting imperialist ideologies. They believe that they have the right to participate in an understanding of Islam and that this right to autonomy is being denied to them both by ‘fundamentalists’ and the West (Anwar 2001). Islamic feminism calls for Muslim women to reclaim their religion by reinterpreting the Qur’an in order to establish the ‘authentic’ foundations of their religion. Islamic feminism states that the patriarchal culture of pre-Islamic Arabia heavily influenced modern Islamic law and states that Islam should not be judged for the oppression caused by the traditions carried out by Muslim people, as many of these actions are also forbidden in the Qur’an. At the fourth World Conference on Women, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first women elected to the head of a Muslim state, Benazir Bhutto (Bostan 2011), proclaimed that “Muslim women have a special responsibility to help distinguish between Islamic teachings and social taboos spun by the traditions of patriarchal society” (cited in United Nations 1995b: para. 14). Thus, it is culture, not Islam, that is bad for women and Islamic feminists are working towards a distinction of the two and are fighting for rights on their terms.

There are various versions of Islamic feminism. The first believes that Islam is not bad for the pursuit of women’s equality and uses the Qur’anic teaching to re-educate Muslims that inequality is not prescribed by their faith (Jawad 1998). Although sharing the common goal with the West of achieving equality between the sexes, these Islamic feminists have different visions of how to achieve equality as well as different motivations from conventional development, which is viewed as drenched in neo-colonialism. This type of development implies that in order to achieve equality and access to rights, Muslim women must reject their religion. However, some Islamic feminists claim that they can be a Muslim, a woman and equal. Sisters in Islam (SIS), for example, is a Muslim women’s organisation established in 1988 in Malaysia to promote the equal rights of women from within an Islamic framework (Bostan 2011). They draw from parts of the Qur’an that assert that men and women are equal and that men have no priority over access to education and that Muslims are to marry of free will, for example (Jawad 1998). Central to their mission is the belief that feminist interpretations of the Qur’an are the true Islam and they abrogate Shari’ah law on the ground that it is human derived and not divine (Mashour 2005; Ahmed-Ghosh 2008). This conviction has put SIS at the forefront of pressures to change family laws in Malaysia and in lobbying for women’s equality and rights (Bostan 2011; Ahmed-Ghosh 2008). The view that Islam is good for women and the pursuit of equality is the driving force behind SIS and, therefore, Islam cannot be dismissed for being detrimental to women as it depends on one’s definition of what Islam is.

Another type of Islamic feminism challenges the view that equality can be achieved at all. Certain Islamic feminists believe that Western women forfeit their biologically determined roles in order to be more like men but never actually achieving equality (Afshar 2000). These feminists see the Western vision of women’s development as a flawed model and see no reason that they should adopt it. It could be argued, therefore, that striving for equality is bad for women and what is in fact needed is equity. In Iran, Malaysia and other parts of Asia, the equality versus equity debate is prominent in Islamic feminism (Ahmed-Ghosh 2008; Foley 2004). This type of feminism believes that since women are not the same as men, equality can never be achieved. Instead of the individualistic priorities of equality, which encourage the breakdown of the family, communitarian rights found in the Qur’an are deemed to grant women rights while staying true to their biologically determined roles (Foley 2004). They state that the Qur’an grants them equal but different rights, such as the right to be provided for when pregnant (ibid. Ahmed-Ghosh 2008). This type of interpretation of Islam separates what is good for women from gender equality. Therefore, if Islam is bad for equality it does not necessarily mean that it is bad for women. This version of Islamic feminism would agree with the conventional secular approach that suggests that equality can only be discussed in secular terms and not within the framework of Islam. However, this simply means that they believe that the different but equally valid pursuit of equity is needed within Islam.

Both secular and Muslim critics of Islamic feminism continue to strip Muslim women of opportunity. It is thought that the term ‘Islamic feminism’ is oxymoronic since Islam can never been in favour of women. Moghissi, for example, asks “How could a religion based on gender hierarchy be adopted as the framework for struggle for gender democracy and women’s equality?” (1999: 126). Moreover, she argues that Shari’ah law is inherently discriminatory against women and is incompatible with human rights based on equality. However, concerns such as these are based on one view of Islam, reducing it to a narrow and negative conception which will further delegitimise the progress made by Muslim women. In addition, feminist groups such as SIS call for the rewriting and modernising of Shari’ah law to include gender equality rights. Therefore, opposition to them appears negated by the incorrect assumption that Islam cannot change. In addition, if Islam is incompatible with gender equality, this simply reinforces the feminist argument in favour of equity. However, there is also a tendency to speak of Islamic feminism as if it too had only one form. Islamic feminists in general have been criticised from within Islam on the grounds that they have no right to speak about Islam because they are not properly educated in Muslim schools (Othman 2006). However, this once again discriminates against women who can never be part of the patriarchal hierarchy put in place to ensure the continued appointment of men as the deciders of this religion. There is no consensus as to “what Islam and whose Islam is the right Islam” (Anwar cited in Hefner 2001: 227) and Islamic feminists truly believe that there is a place for all interpretations of women’s rights within Islam.

This essay questioned whether the human rights promoted by CEDAW and MDG 3 should be treated as universal and the implications on women and development in Islam. This essay has demonstrated that Islam is not a static phenomenon of patriarchy and oppression and that gendered Islamophobia only serves to worsen Muslim women’s struggle. Equally, there is no unique model of what is ‘good’ for women’s development and Islam has only been perceived as ‘bad’ for women because some interpretations contradict Western discourse. Contrary to the belief that Islam is bad for women, it has been shown that Islam is also a feminist resource. Islamic feminists must be commended for rejecting fundamentalism and the dominant secular Western development discourse and fighting for rights on their own terms. They battle the culturally-created element of their religion by using the historical texts to claim and defend the rights of women guaranteed to them in the Qur’an. The varieties found within Islamic feminism and conservative interpretations are all living forms of Islam which highlight the complexity of this religion and development institutions would avoid dangerous generalisations if they accepted this complexity and engaged with, rather than dismiss, Islamic feminism. However, it is also important to understand that Islam is just one part of women’s identities. Therefore, it is vital that Muslim women are able to speak out on national and international scales in order for them to access the rights they want and deserve. It is clear that Islam is both part of the problem and part of the solution for Muslim women and, therefore, what is good for women’s development must be defined by the women themselves.

Word count: 2735

The ethical issue of euthanasia, which confronts our society today, is evidence of our culture’s pervasive concern with finding an easy way out of a moral dilemma. The question of freedom and autonomy of the human being is radical in the discussion of euthanasia. In the name of social justice and freedom of mankind, euthanasia becomes the solution to avoid pain, and escape suffering, in order to reach the so-called desirable “quality of life”. The quality of life argument, at times, has been used scripture narrative, by way of engaging the text politically but which has resulted in its misinterpretation. Moreover, the politicizing of scriptures lacks clarity of the author’s intention. On the other hand, the Catholic church continues to interpret scripture in order to defend the autonomy of human beings as the unique image of God according to revelation and creation. The role of social justice in the writing of the prophet Isaiah will be discussed in this essay and it will be argued that euthanasia is opposed to social justice, as described in the scriptures and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The prophet Isaiah and social Justice

The social ethics of the prophets were thoroughly grounded theologically in Israel’s historical experience of God and the ongoing struggle of the people to deal with the faith experience in their everyday life. For Israel, social ethics was related to their understanding of what it meant to be God’s people and how they should live in the world. Both for the prophets and for the Torah traditions, that understanding was theologically anchored in the Exodus [1] .

Justice, for example, describes how the people were to live in the world. They were to practise justice toward others. In this sense, Justice does not carry the legal meaning sometimes attached to it. It is not ensuring that everyone gets exactly what he or she deserves based on the law. There is some acceptance of other traditions, where justice is what God brings to those who violate his Torah. However, in the prophets, justice means to practise grace and mercy towards those who have no power to secure them for themselves. It means to protect and defend those who are helpless and powerless [2] . One of the most powerful passages about justice comes from Isaiah of Jerusalem, as a condemnation of the city of Jerusalem (1:21-27):

How the faithful city has become a prostitute! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her– but now murderers! Your silver has become dross, your wine is mixed with water. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan, and the widow’s cause does not come before them. . . . I will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy. . . . Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city. Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.

This text considers two important things: first, the terms “righteousness” and “justice” are closely linked. Second, justice is absent when corruption, bribery, failure to defend the orphans and plead the widows’ cause is the social norm. In the patriarchal social structure of Israel, those without family to care for them, widows and orphans, were the most vulnerable people in society. Corruption in leadership most often preyed on those who deepened the most on that very leadership for equity and fairness, usually those without the resources to seek them. Here, justice is the failure to function socially in a way that respects others and defends the weak and powerless of society [3] . Isaiah clearly expresses what God really desires from his people to act upon, as a demonstration of their righteousness (58:6-7):

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

Again, Isaiah communicates Israel’s mission to the world metaphorically as light to the nations. Here, as in other places, Israel’s own well-being finally depends on how she treats other people (58:8-11):

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, and the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday. The LORD will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail.

The prophets did not just condemn leaders for lack of justice or see it as a future dream for the people. From the earliest days of the writings of the prophets, they linked social justice with righteousness as God’s people. They called for both righteousness and justice to be a present reality among God’s people.

Biblical analysis of euthanasia

Biblical understanding of human life was built on the fundamental belief that man is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27: 5:1-2), therefore all human life is sacred. Furthermore, the Bible specifically condemns murder (Exod. 20:13) and this would surely include active forms of euthanasia [4] . Another foundational principle is a biblical view of death; modern medicine defines death primarily as biological, whereas scripture defines death as spiritual. Death, according to the Bible, occurs when the spirit leaves the body (Eccles.12:7; James 2:26) [5] . This revealed fact has a definite bearing on the prohibition of direct killing: “He who sheds Man’s blood shall have his blood shed by man for, in the image of God, man was made” (Gen. 9:6). The Old Testament reveals that all human beings are made in the image of God, but The New Testament adds that a Christian enjoys a special new likeness to God, the indwelling of the three Divine Persons, through inter-personal communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The internal transformation of body and soul that makes this new life possible is based on our sharing in the Divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4) [6] .

Clarifying the terminology of euthanasia

Euthanasia is a term that has no consistency in our contemporary society. In classical Greek, the term means “good death.” In modern usage, it has taken a different, more specific meaning and has come ‘to mean that one person intentionally causes the death of another who is terminally or seriously ill, often to end the latter’s pain and suffering’. Euthanasia takes the following forms: Active Euthanasia: usually when euthanasia is mentioned it means active euthanasia. It is taking action with the intention to cause death. Passive Euthanasia: is used to describe the action of withdrawing and withholding treatment, with the result that death occurs as a natural consequence of the disease process. Involuntary Euthanasia: is a compassionate act to end the life of a patient, who is perceived to be suffering and could make a voluntary request, but has not done so. Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: euthanasia in this form occurs when another person, out of compassion, act with the intention of ending the life of a suffering patient where the patient is unable to make a voluntary request [7] .

Church analysis of Euthanasia

The Declaration on Euthanasia of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that “The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love” [8] . Love for God sends us out to serve others, and it moves us to feel responsibility for those who suffer. It moves us from living as individual to being connected as one body of Christ. We should encourage the sick to discover the redemptive value of their suffering (Rom 12:1, Gal 2:19-20), which will ensure entry into the kingdom of God (Phil 3:10-11; Acts 14:22), by making us worthy of it (2 Thess. 1:4-5). The moral greatness of human life is bound up with our intimate relation to God, the Creator, who stamped an inherent dignity on our nature as persons, making us like him in operations, and he enhanced that dignity even further by the incarnation of the Word [9] .

One of the important features in euthanasia is the need to elucidate the distinction between killing a person and letting them die. To defend the justifiability of distinguishing between the two, we must define euthanasia clearly. Pope John Paul II terms it “an action or omission, which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering” [10] . Since both the moral object and the subject’s intention are evil, the action itself is evil. This moral distinction may be criticised seeing it as reflecting a natural law view of morality. The Catholic doctrine on euthanasia is predicated on the idea that life is “good”, but that our highest good and ultimate end is God, the author of life. While death and suffering are most certainly evils, they are not the ultimate evil. Eternal separation from God is the ultimate evil. Therefore, suffering should be seen as a means of self-conquest and authentic self- surrender to God [11] .

Life-and-death issues have usually been addressed on the basis of personal rights. The assertion of freedom presents a challenging obstacle to those who oppose the pro-choice position. Freedom in Christianity is the ability to direct oneself to God and his service (Gal 5:13, 1 peter 2:16-17) and that we use our freedom well, by loving and trusting God’s will, imitating Jesus’ example of trusting abandonment to the Father. Therefore, suicide is an isolated act of troubled human beings who feel the “good life” has eluded them. The question whether or not one ought to commit suicide is already to answer in the negative, because to take one’s life is not a liberating act. Persons requesting euthanasia have, in some way or other, refused to allow God to be the master of their life [12] .

More attention needs to be devoted to the matter of choice, with respect to the issue of personal freedom. Who can or will develop the rules for making the choices regarding the beginning and end of life? The criteria will depend on who is asking the question and why the question is being asked. The lawyer and the physician may both be interested in determining the beginning and end of life, but for different reasons. For example, the physician is interested in the moment of death for the purpose of harvesting organs. The lawyer is interested in defining the moment of death in the interest of a client’s access to an inheritance. The chronically-ill individual may be interested in the moment and choice of death as a possible solution to unbearable suffering. The physician may have techniques of prolonging or shortening the process of dying, but his use of them may be determined by the threat of lawsuits [13] .

An answer to the justification of euthanasia in the Bible
Killing is explicitly condemned in the Bible

The sixth commandment in the Decalogue is an emphatic negative prohibition, “You shall no kill” (Exod 20:13). The word “kill” occurs 38 times in the OT. The NT quotes the sixth commandment extensively (Matt 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke: 18:20; Rom 13:9). Thus, the NT believer is under obligation to obey the commandment, “You shall not kill”. The question arises concerning the application of this biblical teaching from the sixth commandment to the euthanasia debate. To be able to answer the question, we shall classify the Biblical concept of murder, which seems to be: intentional, premeditated, malicious, contrary to the desire or intention of the victim, and is against someone who has committed not crime deserving of capital punishment. They reason that euthanasia would not be characterised by maliciousness; they believe they are doing an act of mercy. However, as was shown above, the prohibition in the sixth commandment encompasses accidental death, a killing that does not have malicious intent. Therefore, euthanasia is prohibited by the sixth commandment [14] .

Suicide is implicitly condemned in the Bible

Suicide, the act of self-killing, is never directly addressed in the scriptures. Though examples of suicide are recorded in the Bible, it is important to note that a single word for suicide does not exist in Hebrew of Greek, making it impossible for the Bible to refer to it directly. However, the condemnation of “self-killing” is usually inferred from the sixth commandment. If to shorten the life of another through killing is wrong, then to kill oneself is also wrong. But today, this understanding of suicide as biblically prohibited killing has come under intense attack. The argument is built on the three biblical cases in support of the assertion that Scripture permits some suicides [15] .

Five cases of suicide appear in the OT: Abimelech (Judge 9:54); Saul’s armour bearer (1 Sam 31: 4-5. 1 Chron 10:4-5); Ahithophel (2 Sam 17:23) Zimri (1 Kgs 16:18). The Biblical narrator reports each of these self-killings with neither commendation nor condemnation, which opens the possibility for arguing that, in ancient Israel, the act of suicide was regarded as something natural. However, if the biblical author gives no comment of the suicide, how can a positive evaluation be the assured conclusion? Furthermore, it is true that OT narrative usually records events with no evaluation, but the biblical reader must consider the whole presentation made, in order to draw a proper conclusion, because in biblical narrative, a proper examination of the suicide shows that it is an act of a rebel against God, not the heroic final act of a faithful person [16] .

The NT records one clear case of suicide, the death of Judas (Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18). In this narrative, the biblical text contains no statement concerning any repentance of Judas. Judas suicide was the culmination of spiritual rebellion that led him to betray Jesus into the hands of His enemies (Math 26:12-16). The suicide of Judas was not the result of repentance, but because of his lack of repentance. Thus, the six biblical reports of suicide do not convey a sense of acceptance and moral approval; rather, the overall context demonstrates an atmosphere of spiritual disobedience. Therefore, the Bible does not condone suicide, and any act of voluntary euthanasia, whether passive or active, is an act of disobedience against God, because suicide is implicitly condemned in the Bible. Thus, for those who base their ethical standards and behavior on the Scriptures, any act of euthanasia is to be rejected as direct disobedience to the Word of God [17] .

How to read the bible in the light of contemporary issues

Most biblical writings are contextual, in a far narrower sense than simply being historically and culturally conditioned, for they addressed very specific situations or they were occasioned by very particular circumstances. Therefore, it is unusual to establish connections, parallels or analogies between the situations addressed by particular biblical writers and situations, which typically confront us now.

As readers of the Bible, we are first of all eavesdroppers. This means that a proper interpretation of the biblical writers’ ethical statements presupposes the prior task of reconstruction of the situation that a given biblical writer was addressing at that time. We may need to reconstruct the unrecorded side of the interchange, to stand any chance of understanding what is being said in the biblical text, and with what nuances or emphases, in order to be reasonably sure that we are not getting the wrong end of the stich altogether. In the case of a few biblical writings, the quest for a reconstructed dialogue partner may be misguided; in the case of others, it may be desirable but impossible, for lack of clues; but in most cases, the clues are there and it would be disingenuous to ignore them [18] .

Conclusion

Essentially, from the Biblical perspective on euthanasia, is the understanding of the sanctity of human life, which was practiced in Western culture particularly Christian, unfortunately this view is moved to the “quality of life” argument. The disabled, retarded and infirm were seen as having a special place in God’s eyes, whereas today, the medical view depends on a person’s ability to perceive such a quality of life or lack of it. Life is no longer seen as sacred and worthy of being saved. Patients are evaluated and lifesaving treatment is frequently denied, based on subjective and arbitrary standards for the supposed quality of life. If life is not judged worthy of being prolonged, people feel obliged to end that life [19] .

Christians are called upon to return to fundamental beliefs that, because man is created in the image of God, all human life is sacred. Society must not place an arbitrary standard of quality of life above God’s absolute standard of human value. This means that decisions ought to be guided by an objective, absolute standard of human worth.

The evidence analysed in this investigation suggests that Thomas Cranmer established various aims to help further the English Reformation. He met with both successes and failures. The extent to which his successes outweighed his failures will determine how important he was for the progress of the Reformation. A careful analysis will be made of his work regarding introducing the English Bible, helping reform church institutions, doctrine, liturgy. In addition his contributions as a reformed theologian including the durability of his accomplishments will be considered. Other figures also helped spur on the Reformation such as King Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, and Queen Elizabeth I. To further evaluate the importance of Cranmer’s contributions this investigation will compare his work with these other personas of historical importance.

Cranmer set out to achieve various goals during his life regarding the English Reformation. Cranmer assumed an important role in the introduction of the English Bible. He endorsed the “Great Bible” in April 1539 was issued to the public for the first time. By late 1541 five more additions of the “Great Bible” had been released. (Dickens 1989, 152) He even contributed a preface to the second edition. Bromiley states in Thomas Cranmer: Theologian “Of all his achievements in the earlier period, the introduction of the English Bible was perhaps the most far-reaching and influential” (xiv)

The archbishop of Canterbury also helped reform the church institutions. He was involved in diplomatic work as he wanted to link England with international Protestantism. Cranmer believed true catholicism (universality) was the unification of the scattered churches of the reformation. Hence catholicity meant unity. He attempted to bring in foreign reformers to England. He successfully brought in Martin Bucer and was helped by English clerics Hooper, Ridley, Holgate ( Dickens 1989, 270) The influence that spread into England came mostly from the followers of Zwingli and Calvin.

Cranmer also made valuable contributions to the reformation of church doctrine. He originally believed in transubstantiation, but then decided that the bread and wine were only symbolic of the body of Christ. King Henry VIII was strongly in favour of transubstantiation and burned people who opposed his view. Cranmer survived due to the King’s protection.

Dickens argues that Cranmer was the English forefront man supporting the “true presence” belief agreed upon by Calvin and Bullinger in the Zurich agreement of 1549. Bullinger believed that transubstantiation was false, but that the bread was sacred, was to be revered, and that the spiritual presence of Christ was there when people took the Eucharist. Like the sun is in the heavens but we can only feel its light and heat, Christ is in heaven but he is working in the hearts of those that believe. (Schaff, I. 471)

Between 1539-1543 there is a turbulent return to Catholicism, heretics burned, and Bible reading prohibited for the laity. Cranmer opposes the 1539 act of six articles, which includes clerical celibacy and as a consequence he has to send his wife away. King Henry VIII wields absolute power and thus Cranmer cannot overtly support great doctrinal changes as long as the King reigned. “It was unfortunate for [Cramner] that he could never persuade Henry VIII to share his enthusiasm [regarding humanist reformation” (MacCulloch 1996, 213) because “The King’s own theology became a moving target during the 1530s” (MacCulloch 1996, 213)

Cranmer’s view of church doctrine was that it be scripturally based, be proclaimed by the monarch in parliament, and be accepted without fighting over minute details. (Dickens 1989, 208) The Ascension of Edward VI in 1547 opens the doors for doctrinal reform. Cranmer issues the “Book of Homilies” a set of 12 official model sermons. He even writes several of the sermons. In 1553 he issues the 42 Articles of Religion, which is a code of doctrine. Under Queen Elizabeth the Homilies are amplified and reissued. The articles lead to the Elizabethan Thirty Nine Articles. Dickens calls these Elizabethan articles “a decisively Protestant interpretation of the faith,” (Dickens 1989, 280)

However, Cranmer also encountered failure in his attempt to advance the English Reformation. Regarding his reforms of Church institutions his diplomatic work in the sense that he failed to bring any Lutheran leaders or Lutheran representatives to England. Cranmer also wanted to rewrite and arrange the canon law into an organized system but failed due to several factors. Many did not favour the canon law because they believed it was too disorganized and needed be replaced by civil law. Cranmer also wrote a plan of reform for the canon law entitled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. Unfortunately this was not published until well after his death. Ultimately none of his proposed reforms for the canon law were enacted. He had proposed changes such as having annual diocesan conferences attended by clergy and laity, which may well have been beneficial for the church. ( Dickens, 1989, 279-280.)

The Archbishop of Canterbury beginning in 1540 focused on revision of the English church liturgy with a specific emphasis on putting it in language comprehensible by the laity. King Henry VIII showed Cranmer considerable favouritism by endowing him the authority to create and spread his own English litany while he rejected proposals of other bishops such as the 1543 Rationale of Ceremonial. When Henry authorized Cranmer to modify the mass by adding devotional passages in English the King did not anticipate great doctrinal changes. However, this laid the foundation for an extreme change of the aim of the mass, replaced sporadic communion for the laity and private medieval masses with regular congregational services of worship.

The King passed away in 1547 and Cranmer’s first edition of the Book of Common Prayer was released in 1549 under Edward VI. It was conservative but it led to a rebellion in South-Western England. Dyson Hague notes his Story of the English Prayer Book that this rebellion may have occurred due to the introduction of totally foreign concepts for those used to attending the mass such as the “The Supper of the Lord” and “Holy Communion”. (Hague 1949, 133) The 1552 second edition of the Book of Common Prayer was Cranmer’s most explicit Protestant liturgical document. Examples such as the mass became communion, tables were to be removed and altars provided, and surplices replaced Eucharist religious robes reflected Zwinglian influence. This 1552 edition later became the basis for Queen Elizabeth I’s prayer book of 1559 and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Interestingly the 1662 version’s Eucharistic liturgy commits several “catholic” compromises. The 1549 Prayer Book at the beginning of the sacrament states “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. In contrast the 1552 version states “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” Finally, the 1662 version is a merger of the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books. (Jasper and Cuming 1990, 232-249) MacCulloch argues that Cranmer would have looked at the alteration of his eucharist by the 1662 reviser with strong suspicion and concern. (MacCulloch 1996, 628) In the 1549 Act the Parliament authorized the doctrine and liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer which is of historical significance because this had been the exclusive area of activity of the monarch since 1534. According to Dickens although not very much is known concerning the origins of the second prayer book, it is certain that its literary qualities are based on Cranmer’s book of 1549. (Dickens 1989, 277) The prayer books according to R.T. Beckwith are predominantly the work of Cranmer. (Beckwith 1992, 101-105)

A significant aspect of Cranmer’s contributions regarding liturgy is the system of canonical hours that were increments of time between prayers specifically for the morning and evening prayer sessions. The canonical hours were no longer to be exclusively controlled and regulated by the clergy. (MacCulloch, 630) MacCulloch states that Cranmer established a strong foundation of liturgy that helped the laity “look beyond the surface of events and say that there is more to human life and creation than the obvious, the everyday.” (630) Cranmer strongly upheld his prayer book in great esteem. He did not heed the Council’s request that he alter the rubric commanding that individuals receive Communion while kneeling. However, he could not stop the introduction of the” black rubric “, which denied any intention to revere the elements.(Dickens 1989, 278.) Cranmer asked for advice from his colleagues as he crafted the 1550 revision of the Ordinal. Its imperfections were later used as grounds for rejection by Rome coming from Anglican demands. The first ordinal was a conservative document, based on medieval sources, though not permitting the social ordering and grouping of bishop, priest and deacon. It maintained the tradition of providing a silver or gold plate for the eucharist bread and chalice to priests recently ordained. Bishops received pastorals staffs. Cranmer also had the priests receive a Bible to represent their purpose of preaching to the congregation. Later an extra amendment of the Ordinal was included in the 1552 prayer book. In this amendment Cranmer reformed the system so that bishops and priests received no items except a Bible. (Dickens 1989, 270)

Cranmer eased access to the liturgy, collecting everything that was indispensable in one book in the common tongue. He likely did not plan on his services being used for 400 years. However, his services were intended for repeated and frequent use. Cranmer’s text has been long revered as originating from an author sensitive providing formal English prose. Contemporary learning demonstrates the indispensable reputation of the structure of language to greater culture.. If, as MacCulloch states, “Cranmer’s language lies at the heart of our English-speaking culture”, (632.) Cranmer’s work towards the English language is likely his most important tribute. There are those that oppose this conclusion. A view is that Cranmer’s liturgies have become ingrained in English literary identity and have predisposed the religious rationale of English-speaking people. In contrast, Donald Gray states it is far too simple to romanticize the historic links between Anglican society and liturgy. Often claims made regarding the importance of the Book of Common Prayer are exaggerated elitist claims stated by and for a segment of society that possessed the time and opportunity for worship. Many enormous areas of England were not significantly influenced by the Book of Common Prayer and possessed very limited knowledge of its contents. (Gray 1991, 135-143) In addition, one may argue that contributions to English religious literature are not necessarily contributions to religious reformation. When Edward VI rose to power as a youth, the opportunity for positive change was met with rapid reformation in the church. MacCulloch demonstrates that as “as the truth liberated the populace, many came to love the Bible.” (613-614) The attacking and rejecting of orthodox beliefs such as religious processions and destroying Latin service books was received well. The walls of churches began to display Biblical messages such as The Ten Commandments, The Lord’s Prayer, and the beatitudes. When Mary ascended to the throne Cranmer was put in prison and threatened violently to sign recantations accepting fundamental Catholic doctrines. He signed the documents. However, he publicly withdrew the recantations right before he was incinerated as a heretic on 21 March 1556.

In conclusion, Cranmer was indispensable to the progress of the English Reformation. His work had impacts on events of the reformation during the reigns of King Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I. The evidence demonstrates that he is among the most if not the most important figure in the English Reformation. Cranmer’s most important reforming achievements are demonstrated by the great documents he created. The access to the Bible and obedience to it that he helped establish was also significant. Cranmer did a great deal more than simply write liturgy and doctrine. The sources demonstrate if had not accomplished his aims at the level of excellence that he did, the efforts of the sixteenth century English reformation would likely have been far less effective and much more short lived.

Word Count: 2002

The above essay is all my own work: the source of all material used in its compilation has been duly cited and all help received is acknowledged. The essay does not substantially duplicate material previously or simultaneously submitted to academic staff at any academic institution.

Jesse Alvarez

There is the worldwide recognition of the present environmental/ecological crisis and there is a central belief amongst the religions that nature was created by God and should be protected. As environmental degradation has occurred, we begin to ask ourselves about the relationship between human beings and nature.

The focus on religion and the environment has grown in recent years. Researchers have looked specifically at the role of religion and ecology. Taylor defines the field of religion and ecology as one that focuses on:

Identifying the obstacles that the worlds mainstream religions may pose to environmental sustainability, and secondly the resources such religions may have available for promoting environmentally beneficent behaviors, (992).

There is the recognition that the Earth is in danger from human activity and use and changes need to be made in order to sustain life on the Earth (Taylor 998).

Why is it important to use religion as a means for environmental action?

Berry states that it is human carelessness and greed that caused the environmental problems that we are faced with today (30).

With this in mind, we look to religion as this is what some individuals believe holds a large degree of responsibility for the start of our environmental problems.

Lynn Whites 1967 essay, The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis suggested a link between religion and the environment. White singled out Christian attitudes as a reason for the environmental crisis. He proposed that the attitudes of individuals who do not regard nature as a central importance need to be changed. The earth needs to be respected and used in a manner that will help to preserve it for future generations, rather than exploit it for the present.

White suggested that it was when the Industrial Revolution began that the human concern for the environment was lost to a greater degree than had been seen in the past.

White interpreted the Bible as presenting human dominance over nature, leading individuals to care about themselves and industrial progress rather than about environmental matters and the ultimate effects of their actions on the earth.

Besides Whites interpretation, there are many other suggested explanations for how humans viewed the world, and their resulting actions.

From the philosophy of Rene Descartes, the universe was seen as a machine. It was from this time that economic progress was a priority and the long-term effects from the development and use of nature was not regarded as an issue (Sevier, 41).

This is a view similar to that held by White, in that human progress and development has led to the environmental effects. However, this view does not specifically mention the role of religion.

Carters interpretation of this issue suggests that the ecological crisis is not a result of Judeo-Christian traditions, but rather stems from the interpretation of the Bible and giving human beings dominance over other life forms (animals, plants) (358). This led to the exploitation of natural resources and ultimately to where we are today with the issue.

Regardless of how it initially happened, we have to face reality and realize that as a society we have caused considerable damage to our planet.

The role of religion

Anthropologists suggest that religion persists because it has value to us, and such value can be either intrinsic, instrumental, or a combination thereof, (Strada 59).

Sevier writes that, Traditionally, religion used to play an integral role in linking people to the natural world, imbuing people with the knowledge and values that make caring for it a priority, (38).

Six major religions

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

Islam

Judaism

Indigenous Religious

Buddhism

There is a universality of suffering.

Being aware of suffering and produces compassion.

Though traditional Buddhism regarded human life over that of animals, there is presently the recognition that all life forms should be respected equally.

As humans we got ourselves into this ecological/environmental crisis and we are the ones that need to get ourselves out.

Source: Swearer

Christianity

There is often seen to be a failure on the part of Christians in how they had interpreted the Bible and used the resources that God made available to them. Lynn Whites 1967 essay is an example of this.

However, this is not the belief of all individuals.

There recently has been an increased awareness of the environment in the United States as churches are initiating responsibility towards environmental protection.

Hinduism

Hindu images relate to the powerful natural world.

Ecological sensitivity is based on the relationship between humans and how they respect the gods and goddesses related to the earth.

In South Asia, the effects of pollution, both in the air and water, have been felt, particularly in recent years.

With the values that Hinduism has towards the environment, reflection is starting to occur on how individuals can best approach the ecological challenges that are occurring.

Islam

An environmental ethic is in the Quran, but leaves an opening for Muslims to incorporate creative and innovative solutions in the contemporary context.

A green jihad has recently begun. This is a common term for the green movement that promotes environmental protection.

Source: Denny

Judaism

Ecological issues were never a central focus of Judaism, but rather were dealt with as they came about.

An environmental perspective suggests that a belief of Judaism is that we are only tenants on this earth. The earth must then be cared for as there are other inhabitants, both presently as well as in the future, that will be living here.

Source: Fink

Indigenous Religions

For individuals following indigenous religions, there is an understanding of their place in the local environment.

Native Americans have believed that there are spirits in nature and the environment needs to be taken care of.

Grim writes that in indigenous beliefs, to analyze religion as a separate system of beliefs and ritual practices apart from subsistence, kinship, language, governance, and landscape is to misunderstand indigenous religion.

The respect for nature and the environment is still present amongst the Indigenous peoples.

What is evident, however, is wherever indigenous peoples have endured, they have maintained a loving experience of place and an understanding that spiritual forces capable of leading humans into both utilitarian and self-understandings abide in all of these places, (Grim).

Source: Grim

How do we create a solution?

An environmental crisis is here. It is recognized throughout the world, and its presence is agreed upon by the major religions. But what is the next step? How do we go about creating a solution?

Can there be a common ground for science and religion in that both work together towards a solution?

Bouma-Prediger quotes Edward O. Wilson in saying that religion and science are the two most powerful forces in the world todayif religion and science could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem [of biological catastrophe] would soon be solved (1392).

Can religion and science work together?

Hossein Nasr writes, The environmental crisis now encompasses the entire Earth, (3).

He suggests that there is a crisis of values and that as humans, we have participated in creating the destruction of the environment.

A need exists to develop a path across religious frontiers without destroying the significance of religion itself and to carry out a comparative study of the “Earths” of various religions as has been carried out for their “Heavens,” if these terms are understood in their traditional metaphysical and cosmological sense, (Hossein Nasr 3).

We need to regain the loss of a moral and social awareness as ecology becomes more individualistic and systems based.

Many researchers recognize that a global stance needs to be taken by religions, with them working together to create a more comprehensive worldview and ethics to assist in reversing this trend, (Tucker and Grim). This is along similar lines with what Hossein Nasr writes, that dialogue on the environment must take place between religions on a global scale.

Tucker and Grim continue by writing that, This is critical because the attitudes and values that shape peoples concepts of nature come primarily from religious worldviews and ethical practices. The moral imperative and value systems of religions are indispensable in mobilizing the sensibilities of people toward preserving the environment for future generations.

Religious factors and environmental behaviors and attitudes

Sherkat and Ellison analyzed data from a 1993 General Social Survey to look at religious factors and environmental behaviors and attitudes.

Their study revealed that contradictory findings on the connection between religion and environmental concern and activism are the result of varied influences of religious schemata and resource interactions on different indicators of environmental concern and activism, (83).

Sherkat and Ellison were not able to conclude specific religious influences on the environment, but suggested that Whites 1967 essay had the possibility of being a primary influence for religious leaders to take a pro-environment stance and actions (83).

Religion and the environment are intertwined in that they have had a history and will continue to have a role together in the future. This may be one area where science and religion can find a common ground both have the environment in their best interest and can work together to find a solution to the current environmental crisis. As religious traditions and beliefs have shaped human values and behaviors towards the environment in the past, this is one possibility for working toward positive environmental attitudes for the future.

Beings and Human Beings are born in nature. Religion and caste are the creations of men. The need of the millennium is human integration across religions, races and countries by the pursuit of right knowledge about Man, Nature and Society.

Religion is the derivative of ancient myths and beliefs passed on from one generation to the other(another) thereby being elucidated into faiths, rituals and traditions.”

Around 2000-2200 million people believe in Christianity, making it by far the single largest religion in the world. Around 1300-1650 million people believe in Islam, making it the second most followed religion in the world. Around 828-1000 million people follow Hinduism. Around 1000 million people do not have any religion or notion of ‘God’, also referred to as atheists. 400 million people follow Buddhism.

Irrespective of what these people follow or what ‘notion they hold of ‘God’. Religion is something, which was created for the betterment of human society as a whole. But In the 21st century religion has more or less become an instrument of war creating unrest amongst countries and people. Many of the major problems in the present millennia can be attributed to these religious conflicts.

These conflicts between major world religions can become a detrimental recipe for disaster wherein they can threaten the very existence of the dominant species on this planet i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens .

The reason why I lay emphasis on the genus and sub-genus is that, across the population people may differ on the basis of colour, caste, race, height, weight, gender and religion but what unites them is the sense of belonging to one species i.e. Homo sapiens.

My father, a philosopher cum visionary would always say that:

“Beings and Human Beings are born out of the same bowl called nature. Religion and caste are the creations of man. The need of the millennium is to bridge this void and bring about human integration across religions, races and countries by the pursuit of true knowledge about Man, Nature and Society.”

Conflict Resolution-

“Conflict Resolution” is the need of the hour and should therefore be given extensive thought and time, following which it should be implemented at a Micro as well as a Macro Level. Envisioning and bringing forth a society whereby individuals and communities work and make decisions for the greater good of mankind on the basis of facts rather than on myths and beliefs. “Conflict Resolution” amongst world religions in its literary sense cannot be achieved, nonetheless a difference in perception exists about the notion of ‘God/Gods’ amongst the believers. Human beings should rise against these odds towards greater enlightenment forging ahead a new era of peace and progress.

On the flip side, one should also be aware of the origin and fate of the vast expanse known as the universe comprising of millions of galaxies, stars, planets and what is the energy which is keeping all of this intact and that too in a predetermined and fixed path.

One should also be aware of the conscious and subconscious state of mind through which we possess this knowledge about each and everything.

If the above mentioned points were made clear, all the mere believers in this world will become true rationalists.

If one Global Religion were to be followed, it would be on the basis of scientific thinking rather than on blind beliefs. All actions and texts of this religion would be based upon the scientific knowledge and literature available at the time. The theory would be self-evolving in nature to the advancements in science and technology.

People should come to an understanding that all Human Beings are created as equals. Nature does not discriminate while nurturing. So as human beings we cannot be discriminative towards the way we look, approach and act towards others belonging to different castes, religions, races, colours etc.

I strongly believe “Knowledge is a driving force.” Knowledge possessed by a certain individual is detrimental towards the way he/she acts in a certain manner. Therefore it becomes imperative to inculcate the right knowledge and values. Being ignorant of the world around is far better than being misinformed. ‘Terrorism’ is also the outgrowth of this misinformation and the misconceptions about ‘God’ and his preaching. This is where we need to play a role whereby we expel all the misinformation and bring about a sense of belonging.

Human Beings are said to be the building blocks of societies. The kind of knowledge an individual possesses has a direct impact on the way he/she acts or behaves. The way one behaves thereby has an impact on the society as a whole. Knowledge and Behaviour play in tandem and therefore it becomes imperative “to give the right Knowledge and eliminate wrong Knowledge.”

To do this, there are certain prerequisites,

Firstly, one should know how to judge between the right knowledge and the wrong knowledge. To do this one should be aware of philosophy and its constituents especially the branch of philosophy which deals with epistemology, logic and origin of the Universe and its existence.

But in this world, which has so far existed, every great society has had its fair share of myths ranging from the creation of the world to how it will eventually end. Tales of wonder and imagination abound wherein each myth is filled with magic, mystery, heroism, treachery, courage and faith. These myths are so widely accepted that they have even managed to permeate in the 21st century. Hence it is our responsibility to differentiate between a myth and a tenet.

Somehow or the other the terms like ‘god’ and ‘religion’ are attributed to philosophy ‘philosophy’; Hence we will now discuss regarding the philosophy and what is the origin and fate of the god and religion.

Different questions in philosophy which made a strong emphasis for the existence of God and religion:-

We each exist but for a very short time.

The actions that we do during the tenure of our life and the fruits which we bear from them is considered as life.

My father used to tell me , ‘Life is real, simple and short’.

Humans, being a curious species explore and question everything, we develop theories, we seek answers , we think, we justify things, we have the ability to communicate all these things which in turn makes us the most dominant species on planet earth.

After coming through different perceptions of the universe from the earlier times to today, we might have a multitude of questions -:

How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?

How does universe behave?

What is the nature of reality?

Where did all this come from?

Did the universe need a creator?

What are the different ways of obtaining knowledge ?

How many types of matter exist in the universe?

What is philosophy?

What are the qualities of the different things in the universe?

What is reality?

What is the ultimate goal of human beings?

What are beliefs?

What are atoms?

How do we know things?

What is is a cause?

How to explain the properties of a thing?

What is space and time?

What is justice?

What is the truth?

What is goodness?

How language came in to existense and what is language?

What are the reasons behind different things?

What is beauty and art?

What is perception,inference,verbal testimony?

What is mind?

What is the origin of religion?

Who invented the first god?

And countless othersaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..

Traditionally these are the prime questions of ‘Philosophy’ . Many indian and western schools of philosophy which gave appropriate answers to many of the above questions and near appropriate answers to some of the questions since ancient times , due to lack of availability of means and scope, like instruments and science and technology., but these days however, these questions are answered by the other schools like different branches of Physical sciences and chemical sciences. But during the earlier times these questions were answered by various religions in many different ways.

Opinions of Some major Philospohers and Scientists –

Western Schools of Philsopohy:-

When it comes to religion, there are six major figures who have done extensive research on Religions and gods, Namely

1.Friedrich max Muller(1823-1900 – He is often called the father of the comparitive religion, Friedrich Max Muller was the son of a German Romantic poet. He studied in Leipzing and in Paris, where he began his first major work, a monumental edition of the Sanskrit text of the Rig Veda, published in four volumes between 1849 and 1862. He settled in England in 1846 and spent most of the remainder of his life in Oxford, becoming Professor of Comparative Philology in 1868. A prolific writer, his later books included Comparative Mythology (1856), Introduction to the Science of Religion (1873) India, What can it teach us? (1883), and many other works, including three series of Gifford Lectures and two volumes of personal reminiscences. He was alo responsible for editing the fifty-volume series of Sacred Books of the East-still an invaluable source for the study of religion.

Max Muller brought the religions of the world for the first time to the notice of the English-speaking public, interpreted to the West the ancient and modern religions of India, in a vital, if sometimes idiosyncratic, way. His theories that religion arose through the personification of natural phenomena have, on the other hand, been wholly superseded.

2.Edward Burnett Taylor (1832-1917)

In its early years , the study of comparative religion was much concerned with the origin and evolution of religion as a universal human phenomenon. E.B. Tylor, who in 1896 became Britain’s first professor of anthropology, in the 1860 s coined the term ‘animism’ to describe what he believed to be the earliest stage in this evolutionary process, a simple ‘belief in spiritual beings’. Tylor studied in Mexico; this visit resulted in his first book, Anahuac (1861). He subsequently published Researches into the Early History of Mankind (1865), and his most important work, Primitive Culture (1871), in which the ‘animism’ theory is cleary stated. Briefly, it is that early man’s experiences of dream and trance that led him first to a belief in a separate ‘soul’ (anima) in himself, and later to postulate the existence of surviving souls (ghosts), and of many such ‘souls’ in animals, plants, the atmosphere, etc. Out of this belief in souls or spirits, there eventually developed belief in gods.

As an evolutionary theory, this is of very little value, but it does represent accurately the way in which primal (and other) peoples (people) look on the unseen world. Tylor’s example, provided for the first time a way of understanding religion at a basic level, served to point anthropology along a path which it still to some extent follows.

WILLIAM JAMES (1842-1910)

William James, the brother of the celebrated American novelist Henry James, was chiefly responsible, in the years around the turn of the century, for popularizing the new subject of the psychology of religion. His book The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) is a classic, and widely read even today. Trained in medicine, he taught both physiology and psychology at Harvard as early as the 1870s, and in1890 published a celebrated textbook, The Principles of Psychology. Most of his others books , including The Will to Believe (1896), Pragmatism (1907) and Human Immortality (1908), were originally courses of lectures.

In his Varieties he drew many valuable distinctions between types of religious experience, the best known being that between the optimistic ‘religion of healthy mindedness’ (typified by Christian Science) and the pessimistic ‘religion of the sick soul’ (traditional Calvinism). He also had much to say on mysticism, and discussed ‘altered states of consciousness’ many years before the subject became fashionable. He came from a Swedenborgina background, and his own religon was an indistinct theism, far removed from orhtodox Christiantity. Although he is still worth reading;his approach was too individualistic, and he had little to say about the corporate aspects of religon. His methods, too, were seriously called in question by the depth psychologists (Freud, Jung and their followers), and are hardly applicable today.

WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH (1846-1894)

Robertson Smith , best known for his magisterial book – Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1889), was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland. In 1870 he became Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Free Church Colloge in Aberdeen. In the early 1880 he was dismissed from his chair for ‘unscriptural’ teaching,and in 1883 was elected Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. A liberal evangelical, he was responsible for bringing together traditional philological study of the Bible and the new insights of anthropology.

He first visited North Africa in 1879, and was impressed by the existence of ‘totemism’ among the Sinai Bedouin: this resulted in his first major work, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia(1885). In his later Lectures, he concentrated on the concept of sacririce, which he saw less as a legal transaction than as a practical means of establishing communion with deity. He also recognized that in religion, customs and rituals are often more significant than systems of belief, and that it is vitally important that the student be an accurate and sympathetic observer of the practical side of religon. His influence was widespreadd: he inspired J.G. Frazer to study ‘totemism’, and was a forerunner of the sociological study of religion- for which reason he, almost alone among his contemporaries, is still respected among sociologists and anthropologists. Despite his brush with ecclesiastical authority, he remained warmly evangelical in his personal beliefs.

NATHAN SODERBLOM (1866-1931)

The link between comparative religion and Christian theology was firmly established in the early part of the twentieth century by a group of scholars of whom Nathan Soderblom was perthaps the most outstanding.

Born the son of a Lutheran country minister in Sweden, from 1894 to 1901 he was Swedish legation pastor in Parus; in 1901 he bacame Professor of Comparative Religion in Uppsala in 1914, a post he occupied until his death in 1931. His scholarly work spanned many fields, among them are Iranian studies, Luther studies, mysticism, and General comparative religion.

Though few of his many books were translated into English, his Gifford Lectures The Living God (published posthumously in 1931) were widely read in those days. He endeavored to locate historica Protestantism within Christiantiy, and Christianity within the religions of the world. He drew valuable distinctions between mystical and ‘revealed’ forms of religon, and later between two forms of mysticism, ‘mysticism of personality (Paul, Luther) and ‘mysticism of the infinite’ (indian religon). As well as this academic work, Soderblom made an invaluable contribution to twentieth-century Christianity as one of the fathers of the ‘ecumenical movement’.

RUDOLF OTTO (1869-1937)

Educated at Ealanged and Gottingen, most of Otto’s career was spent in teaching posts at Gottingen, Breslau and Marburg. After early work in Luther studies, he turned his attention to the philosophy of religion, and after 1911 to the philosophy of religion, and after 1911 to the study of Indian religions.His best known and most important work, The Idea of the Holy, first appeared in German in 1917, and in English in 1923. In it, he attempted to show that religion begins with ‘the sense of the numinous’, that is, of a mysteriously ‘other’ deity both fearsome and fascinating (numen=deity). This book became a religious classic.

His later Indian studies included -Mysticism East and West (1932) and- India’s Religion of Grace (1930), and a critical edition of the Bhagavad Gita (The Original Gita, 1939). In 1921, convinced of the importance of living, inter-religious dialogue, he inaugurated the Inter-Religious League, which was not a success. In his last years his internationalism caused him to fall foul of the Nazi government in Germany, and he died in 1937.

Otto’s most lasting contribution to the study of religion lay in his insistence on the importance of -immediate, non-rational experience to any estimate of the nature of religion. Although -The Idea of the Holy was not always well understood, it spoke directly to the mind of the twentieth century, and helped lay the foundations for much later work in the area of personal religious experience and of mysticism.

Williams James(1842-1910),William Robertson Smith(1846-94),Nathan s(S)oderblom(1866-1931,Rudolf Otta)1869-1937),When ever we speak regarding religions these people should be remebered by the world.Thier works are really needed for the mankind.They have done a major research in the field of god and religion.

At the same time some scientists cum philsophers have also given their valuable opinions on God and religion. Now we shall discuss some of the valuable opinions and some misconceptions.

Many people didn’t develop theories on practical basis (Quantitative Predictions) .Aristotle and others, made the priniciples that appealed to him intellectually, most people suppressed the facts that they found unappealing. No matter how severely their theories deviated from reality ; they used to alter and never removed the concept.

For example -The Greek Christian successors rejected the idea that the universe is governed by indifferent natural law.

Some religious dogmas like Epicurus (341Bc-270Bc) opposed atomism on the grounds that it is “Better to follow the myths about God than to become a slave to the destiny of natural Philosophers”.

Aristotle too rejected the concept of atoms because he could not accept that human beings were composed of soulless inanimate objects.But the Indian Philsophers considered Atoms as a kind of matter and there are many concepts and theories developed by ‘Kannada’ on atoms ; but even the concept of atoms has been curbed in India by Adi Shankara.It is not the context of this essay to discuss more on atoms.(remove the last sentence)

Most of the theories developed in the Great India with clear cut concepts of Atoms, Body, Matter, Space ( were destroyed with time and circumstances)what not everything, were just went into wrong hands, either. They were changed and some still lay. Unapproachable to the humans as they were destroyed. ( remove everything after circumstances)

The Christian philosopher Thomas Aquiras said, “It is clear that inanimate bodies reach their end not by chance but by intention”-There is therefore an intelligent personal being whom everything in nature is ordered to its end” and that intelligent person is nothing but god.

Even as late as in the 16th century the great German astronomer Johanes Kepler belived that planets had sense perception and consciously followed laws of movement that were grasped by their ‘mind’.

Indeed in 1277 Bishop of Temple of Paris,acting on the instructions of Pope John XXI published a list of 219 errors or heresies that were to be condemned.Among the heresies was the idea that nature follows laws.Because this conflicts with the gods omnipotence, unfortunately Pope John was killed by the effect of the law of gravity a few months later when the roof of his place fell on him due to the gravitations pull of earth.

According to Descartes- ‘God could at will alter the truth or falsity of ethical proposition or mathematical theorems but not nature. He believed that God ordained the laws of nature but had no choice in the laws; rather he picked them because the laws we experience are the only possible laws. Moreover Descartes felt – once God set the world going ,he left it entirely alone.

If nature is governed by laws ,then we all have a set of questions like :-

1-From where did these laws were originate?

2-How can you understand these laws?

3-Do these laws need a creator?

4-Are these laws final ?

5-Can there be exceptions to these laws?

These important questions have been addressed by different philosophers ,scientists and visionaries in many different ways.

The answer to the first question has been given by the great scientists like Kepler,Galileo,Descartes and Newton. It is that the laws were Designed by God. However, this is no more than a definition of god as the embodiment of the laws of nature ;unless one endows God with some other attributes such as being the god of the old testament .

If we consider god as the answer to the first question then the real crunch comes in the fifth question-Are there any exceptions to the laws?

Opinions about the answer to the fifth question is quite interesting .

Aristotle,the great Greek philosopher clearly mentioned that there can be no exeptions to the laws.But according to the Bibilical view God not only created the laws but also has the power to make changes to those laws ,which contradicts Aristotle. In opposition to the views of Decscartes,according to Bible -by praying one can heal the terminally ill, an enormous cyclone can be just stopped by his signs, premature ends to droughts.

In opposition to the views of Decscartes;God has the ability to do any thing in the universe.Even Newton believed in miracles of a sort,he thought that god must be resetting the orbits to avoid the falling of planets into Sun!

But there was a rationalist during the time of Napoleon.A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds when some super natural being decides not to intervene.Here Napolean asked Laplace- How god will fit in to this picture?

Laplace replied that- “I have not needed that hypothesis”.In the same way we also do not need the hypothesis of god and religion;but today religion is made a major point in the hypothesis of the human beings.

We can clearly sense that Laplace is a kind of rationalist.,even Albert Einstein is a rationalist, he said that:

“I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.”

Indian schools of philosophy:-

India sub -continent is having a catholic theories on the God and religion and Above mentioned concepts.(remove this sentence)

Different schools of Indian Philsopohy deal the above questions in many different ways. The six orthodox schools of the Indian Philsophy are :- 1.Nyaya,2.Vaishesika,3.Purva mimamasa,4.Uttaara mimasa or vedanta5.Sankahya,&6.Yoga were altered in many ways in Ancient India. We do not yet know whether these schools are orthodox or rational;However the concepts which they taught are undoubtedly rational but the crunch comes when these laws are altered in order to protect the religion and god.

By the advent of new laws from Kannada,Gautama and many other Philsophers and with the renewed belief in the laws, there were attempts to reconcile these laws along with God.

The path of the true philosophy was bifurcated by many religious dogmas in Ancient India and even in the western world. The countries which were the bearer’s of the torch of discovery, invention, & innovation had become calm.The religious dogmas diverted the path of true philosophy and used if for their own selfishness.

The quest for knowledge in Ancient India was put off by the religious dogmas from there on great text’s literature which are essential for mankind for it’s progress and development were interpreted in many Unscientific ways.

The Great theories like Nyaya-Vaishesika,Astronomy, Mathematics & Philosophy, which were developed in India in a course of time were held in very high esteem.If it were allowed to follow it’s original course unimpeded by the religious dogmas then there might have been be a lot of development

In India all the theoeries are somehow or the other attributed to the god’s and vedas.

But by the advent of the Budhhists,Charvaka,Jain the heteredox schools of the India Philsopohy;there was a big change in the human society but it was again curbed by some religious dogmas in ancient India.Most of the people believe that Nyaya and vaishesika are also the heterodox schools of the indian philosophy.

All the orthodox schools of the Indian Philosophy believe in god and Veda’s, while Heterodox schools have a rational tendency towards the things.

Hence it is clear that each philosopher, scientist, revolutionary, and guru has had a strong craving to change the society of the time to a better one. They have always had a deep insight on the days to come but due to lack of scope many misconceptions have crept into their theories.

Now we shall discuss the role of god and religion

Role Of God and religion-

Day by day we are getting knowledge and we are getting enriched because of it . In the same way each and every text may it be religious or of any other subject should stick totally to recent discoveries and inventions.

We know that we get knowledge through our sensory organs. The nerves impulses are carried from each sensory organ to the brain and it is getting processed in our brains. The brain interprets the input from our sensory organs and by that we develop our concepts and develop our own theories ( religions). But there may be difference in which one could perceive the same physical situation, with each employing different fundamental elements and concepts.

If all the religions which are developed are totally dependent on the truths ,we are free to follow whichever religion that is most convenient. But this is not happening-different religions teach different things and are based on different concepts. In this sequence of the history of mankind we had found better and better theories(religions). There were gods of love and war, Sun, Earth, Sky, Oceans, Rivers, Rain, Thunder Storms even Earth Quakes and Volcanoes. Ignorance of the people in Ancient time made them to invent gods to seek answers as told before. As we are acurious species ,wherever the answer was not found or finding an answer was difficult a new god was invented and it became as if god came into every aspect of Human life.

When the gods were pleased, mankind was treated to good weather, peace and freedom from natural disaster and disease and on the flip side when they are displeased there came drought, war, pestilence and epidemics since the relativity between cause and effect in nature was not in their perception( is beyond their perceptions). The gods became superior and our species was self dragged into the mercy of gods. Hence gods became inscrutable but with Kannada, Gautama and by the thoughts of Buddha about 2600 years ago. The idea arose that nature follows a set of laws and laws and epistemology and the theories of atomicity had came into practice. They developed their system of thought, matter, ways we acquire knowledge, atoms etc.

Here it is clear that from the beginning of the mankind till now there have been a number of defintions of god and so many concepts and beliefs were have been developed on god by different scientists philosophers and priests.Some people of the Ancient times didn’t develop scientific inquiry in their theories and hence invented false gods and wrong concept based religions.

Hence in the 21st century, we the Universsal citizens who belong to the same species Homo Sapiens must enact by assuring the dignity of the Individual and Unity and Integrity of the Universe.

Unless and until an(replace an with a)universal Religion and God are established,there cannot be peace in the this universe.I would like to mention one more thing – The need of this millennium is human integration with right knowledge about man nature and society.

As said by my father All the people on this planet earth should have a Healthy , Happy , Purposeful long life. This is only possible through synchronisation of global religions.

For the past 2000 years the Jewish people have been persecuted with extreme prejudice. They have been murdered for countless different reasons over the course of two millennia. The underlying reason for this hatred and racism has always been a belief that their ancestors were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This racism is literally an ongoing punishment for the supposed sins of the early Hebrews.

In at least three of the gospels in the Christian bible there are differing accounts of the roles the early Jews played in the actual trial and execution of Christ. Needless to say, these passages remained controversial for as long as they have been committed to paper. There is speculation as to the validity of their claims as historical proof. A recent film about the final twelve hours of Jesus Christ’s life and death places these inconsistencies and the mistreatment of the modern Jews back into the spotlight. This alleged literal translation caused many contemporary Jews to cry out in protest over the hard-line depiction in Mel Gibson’s new film The Passion of the Christ.

Part of the reason this new film is causing so much controversy is because of Gibson’s blatant reinterpretations and artistic license taken throughout the film. He tends to go out of bounds with the already tough Jewish public sentiment in regard to Christ’s death and creates a completely anti-Semitic work. Artistic license is acceptable when creating, but when the claim is made that the work will be a literal translation of the gospels, one looses the ability to fabricate and enters into a new realm of scrutiny.

Mel took a copious amount of artistic license with this film, but he does not see it that way. In 1965, the Catholic Church via the pope in the Vatican declared, among other things, that the Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. This declaration is formally entitled Vatican II. It exonerates the Jews and condemns all those still seeking Jewish suffering. It directly affects the Catholics, which means that Gibson and his family, who are not Catholics, are not required to abide by these new dictates.

Mel, his family and a group of others called The Holy Family, have decided that their particular form of Catholicism needed to be further amended and conservatively redefined. They practice the Trinitine Mass, an extremely conservative form of Christianity based on traditional Catholicism, and they openly reject the changes of Vatican II. In short, they still hold present and past Jews responsible in particular for the death of Christ.

Mel’s father, Hutton Gibson, stated “all the popes since John XXIII are illegitimate anti-popes, the Second Vatican Council was a ‘Masonic plot backed by Jews’, and the Holocaust figure of 6 million Jews killed was an exaggeration” (Schroth 2). He himself is a full-fledged member of this ultra conservative right wing theology and did nothing but illustrate their prejudiced philosophies to the media and an interested society at large. He is an accurate reflection of the ideals that helped to form the interpretations governing this film.

Mel’s self-professed goals for this film were simple. ” Gibson claimed that his account would be historically truthful because it would be based on the Gospels” (Schroth 3). He was unimpressed with previous attempts to depict the passion in film so he embarked on the journey of telling this story. He wanted to depict the scriptures literally and show the events the way they truly happened. Gibson funded his attempt with his own 25 million dollars and the rest was history. This is an attempt to influence his audience to believe that the sacrifice Christ made for humanity happened the way he and his “Holy Family” see it. By creating a flashy high-profile film he makes this subject popular and accessible to the secular world as well as the established Christian community.

No matter what Gibson claimed to begin with he fell short of his publicly stated intentions. After viewing his finished product one can easily walk away with the notion that this is actually an Anti-Semitic film and not the truthful enlightenment of the Scriptures originally purported. First, because Gibson stated the film would be ‘Scripturaly truthful’ one must stay alert, knowing that the film starts off on shaky ground. The bible is a huge collection of literal contradictions and potentially inaccurate historical events, “the Gospels themselves, written between A.D. 70 and 100, are not reliable historical documents. They contradict one another on detailsaˆ¦” (Schroth 3). These inconsistencies can and do become a damning problem when one begins to make claims using the bible as infallible support as Gibson does for the film.

Second, people interpret the bible’s same passages in many different ways. This is part of the reason that Christianity separated into so many factions at different times throughout history. It is the reason so many people believe they are acting within spiritual grace. While other Christians may think the same action would be deviating from the correct path. These differing interpretations have been a source of constant confusion for two millennia, with no end in sight. So when Gibson makes a movie based on the scripture it could contain almost anything, slanted and yet still hold validity and accuracy. However this does not mean it was the way the true events occurred in history. It means he is trying to make truth from what can be anecdotal metaphors without any real support for actual fact regardless of Scripture.

Perhaps most intriguing here is that the bible is actually at odds, within itself, as to the actual culpability of the Jews. The four gospels do not agree with the role the Jews played in Jesus’ execution, the amount of Jews present during the entire ordeal and ultimately whether or not they are guilty at all. Gibson in his film removes all the bibles messy inconsistencies and forces the Jews to shoulder the responsibility themselves; all the while operating under the pretense that this is the most faithful rendition of Scripture yet. This is a condemnable offence by itself on Gibson’s behalf.

Gibson’s film boasts several inconsistencies with the Bible. This is a rough point for a film, which was purported to be a truthful translation of the Scripture. If we accept the Bible as fact, as faithful Christians do, then we are instantly exposed to many small changes and artistic licensing. These new interpretations singularly may not present an offence, but collectively within the span of a two-hour film become impossible to ignore.

Among the more prominent of these points in dispute with the facts as the bible presents them are the inclusion of the devil as a supporting character. He, or she in the film, does not enter even once into Christ’s final twelve hours at all. No matter how great Satan is as a metaphor for evil in general, he had no place here. The portrayal of Harrod as an unbelievably self-consumed man is acceptable. The problem there was removing a classic sense of blame which can be interpreted as guilt in the role he played in sending Christ to a certain death at the hands of Pilate. He became a nonentity that only slowed the progression of the story. The depiction of the irrational high court’s evaluation and sentencing of Christ is not congruent with the scriptures as well. The court actually speaks words directly from scripture but acts in a way that makes them seem to be just a well-dressed addition to the radically insane Jewish mob. There is a thoroughly unbelievable Jewish mob, which defies both scripture in most cases and also reality throughout the entire film. With the exception of Jesus’ inner circle there is no scene in this film that does not feature throngs of Jews acting horribly by spitting, beating and ridiculing Christ. It losses effect after fifteen minutes and just becomes farcical. Jesus and his inner circle are not portrayed as Jews in this film. They read as something else entirely, but the truth is they were Jews and just the sign above Christ’s cross was not enough to show that. This subtle technique only further pushed the Jews into a corner of singular guilt. This was particularly ridiculous. The outright destruction of the throne and the Jewish temple with the high priests falling all over themselves was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The Bible’s account only shows the sacred curtain being ripped down. Again, this is a real strike against the Jews with nothing to back it in terms of scriptural fact. Last, and very important to these minor arguments was the extreme brutification of the criminal Barrabas. His role in the film is taken out of chronological order from the scriptures in all cases. This would seem minuscule, but it becomes profound, when in the film the Jewish mob chooses a disgusting known killer of Jews over a scourged and mutilated Jesus Christ. As opposed to how it actually takes place in scripture before the whipping. Again, all of these points are inconsistent with the Bible as a fact, and most of them are used to make the Jews look horrible, so that their sole blame can be easily established.

The next and possibly most important point illustrating Mel’s disdain for the Jews is his treatment of the crucifixion, whipping and flogging in the film. In all four of the Gospels there is a description of the torture and execution of Jesus, but in only two of these accounts is he ever flogged. When mention of his flogging appears it is only included as an unelaborated fragment of another sentence. There is substantial doubt as to whether or not the scourging ever happened, let alone the flogging, but this is not how Gibson portrays this event. Gibson uses the bible’s lack of detail as a green light to insert his own interpretations as he sees fit. He literally takes the sentence fragment from the two Gospels which mentioning a whipping, and recreates a seriously significant new transgression in Christ’s final trials. This newfound trial is then portrayed to be even more severe than the actual crucifixion itself, finally becoming Christ’s horrific true sacrifice. Gibson only had to reinsert the Jews as the scapegoat decision makers and in the audience’s eyes they would automatically take the blame for this horrifying act. This is a very subtle and true masterstroke on Gibson’s part and it shows his deliberate intent completely.

Gibson’s doctoring of the Gospel’s accounts, reinterpretations of their clear passages and wholesale elaborations on their context becomes damning. It changes the movie from a literal interpretation of the Bible and creates a propaganda piece outlining one fanatical but skillful director’s point of view: the Jews are not only responsible for Christ’s death but are guilty of an execution so brutal and a torture so heinous that it is literally unparalleled in human history. Furthermore, they should still be held accountable even now 2000 years later. Not only are these concepts ridiculous, but they became so polarized before the movie even released, that Gibson, probably realizing he had gone to far, cut out several lines from the film directly accusing the Jews of wrong doing. He knew he had crossed the line and would have an increasingly serious problem on his hands because the script pieces he removed were literal text from the Bible, not speculative fodder like many of his other treatments of the events. He must have truly understood that what he was doing was deplorable if he felt that cutting actual, literal text was acceptable when his goal was to make a truthful version of the Gospel in film.

In order to understand how deeply Gibson’s desire to defame the Jews runs, we need only examine the treatment of one of the movies main characters. Gibson’s cruel intent is ironically tied to his saintly portrayal of the man Pontius Pilate. It is first important to note that all four of the Gospels are uniquely in unison on one thing: Pilate killed Jesus. Pilate made it his final decision to crucify Christ. If the whipping and scourging happened at all the way it did in the film, Pilate made that so. A small group of Jews 2000 years ago called for Christ’s execution, but it was Pilate who ordered it. Pilate is a monster, and he has always carried that reputation so fiercely that it is and has been common knowledge to Christians for 2000 years. It is Pilate who is responsible for Christ’s demise and not the Jews, but Gibson has another idea.

For one very specific reason Gibson sees fit to take extreme artistic license once again with the facts as presented in the Bible and utilizes revisionist history to reinvent the monster Pilate into a good man. In his film Pilate is presented almost as a hero. He is the voice of reason and personifies logic. He is completed with a cliche good-guy demeanor that is not at all the standard template for this dubious historical figure. Gibson plays him out in the film as a fine, moral Roman Tribune possessed of extraordinary logic and sympathy, struggling with a profound unwillingness to execute Christ amidst throngs of blood-hungry, insane Jews. Gibson manufactured Pilate into deity from an evil human being, and by doing that absolved Pilate of guilt.

Pilate’s absolution was paramount to Gibson because it drives the nail home on the Jews. Gibson has carefully crafted many inconsistencies with the scriptures in order to create an even more terrifying version of Christ’s ordeals. With Pilate he removed any and all others associated with the wrongful death of Christ so that the burden would fall squarely on the Jews. There literally remains no third party to convolute the picture of now clearly established blame.

Finally Gibson’s grand-masterstroke can be revealed. The audience’s horror with his extreme violent depictions of scourging and crucifixion will subconsciously transform into a basis of hatred against the Jews. This hatred of the character Jews in the film is probably intended to further proliferate a continuing Anti Semitic sentiment in both Christian and global Culture, perpetuating a 2000-year-old racial prejudice

Gibson is an experienced master of his craft, which means that he acted deliberately. Nothing could have appeared in a film he produced, directed, financed and helped to write without his knowing and approval of every small detail. He can point no fingers here; there is nowhere to hide. All of his ugly subtleties were in the end, all to apparent to people with an open mind and an understanding of the facts as presented in the Bible. This is Gibson’s true intent for this film, not historic truth based on the Gospels at all.

Gibson’s attempt to slander and blame the Jews either shows a profound lack of understanding or a scalding ignorance of the Christian faith on his part. He thinks he is a very devout Christian, but Christians believe in one very important thing: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he sacrificed himself to atone for all of man’s sins. Gibson’s film does not reflect this ideal. He blames the Jews directly, but they could not be directly responsible at all. This shows either his inability to accept the fact, or just a simple prejudice. The Jews are not guilty because all mankind is guilty. A true follower of the teachings of Christ knows this and acts accordingly. After all, Jews helped Christ to fulfill the prophecies needed in order to die for all mankind’s sin. This could serve to shed a fresh, new, and positive light on the Jews; in the end they are God’s chosen people.

Gibson’s extremist mincing throughout the film works against his established intentions. His interpretations are shallow and transparent. They clearly show his prejudice towards the Jewish people, and he can only come off as an ugly person in the end. Intelligent people and open-minded Christians will not be swayed by the coercive piece of propaganda that The Passion Of The Christ is. It will insult them and their intelligence. Gibson’s only stroke of brilliance involved with this project was displaying that he understood the psyche of the religious-right in the US. He knew how to strike up the publicity on this film. Not only did he get the hard-core right wing Christian community to back it without question, he drummed up an overwhelming amount of raw curiosity throughout the secular world. His story, the publicity, the controversy, the disagreements, the inconsistencies, earned him notoriety, acclaim and over 300 million dollars. That money may be the only true success he earns with this film, because anyone ignorant of Christ’s story will not be converted by this nonsense. They will just be confused about how his portrayal of Jesus could measure up to the man so many people worship as God.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Lost Son, is known to most within the sphere of Christianity, but few are aware that a very similar parable exists within one of the most important texts of Mahayana Buddhism, The Lotus Sutra. Both parables share a common structure and plot consisting of a son who leaves home, returns, and is received by his father. Where the two differ however is in the specific details of the three broad plot sections, and what those details mean within the context of their respective religion. For example, the son leaves home in both parables, but parable found in Luke, in the New Testament, is used to teach Christians something completely different than what the parable found in Chapter Four of The Lotus Sutra teaches Buddhists. Another point in which the two parables differ is in who the characters represent within the parable. It could also be argued however that the characters are actually quite similar in their representations, the father representing the figurehead of the religion, God in Christianity and the Buddha, or more specifically the Buddha nature, in Buddhism and the son representing the practitioner. Despite their differences, cross-examining the two versions of the parable offer an insightful look into both Christianity and Buddhism, and any similarities between the two, while taking the time to fully understand the differences offers a deeper knowledge of each religion as well. Both parables are similar in structure and plot, but vary greatly in meaning, especially within the context of their respective religion.

In both versions of the parable, the story begins with a sin leaving home. In the Christian version, a son asks his father for his share of the inheritance early, and leaves home with his small fortune, only to squander it all until he is forced to work in filth, feeding swine, while barely keeping himself fed. “He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything” (Luke 15:16). The pigs the son was seeding were fed better than he. In the Buddhist version, a son secretly runs away from his father and wanders for a great many years, living a poor life of menial labor, but still keeping himself afloat, clothed and fed. He wanders from village to village, place to place. Meanwhile, his father had been earnestly searching for him, and decided to take up residence in a city where he built up an enormous fortune upon an impressive estate. Within the Christian parable, the son leaving and squandering his inheritance symbolizes man leaving God’s grace for a life spent in sin. Even the son’s actions very clearly represent a sinful lifestyle. Asking his father or his share of the inheritance while his father still lives is a way of wishing his father were dead. This first part of the Christian version represents the first in a series of events that leads to returning to the light of God, that of turning from the grace of God to lead a life of sin. In the Buddhist version, the son runs away without any wealth from his father, and spends many years wandering in a miserable condition. This symbolizes the fact that wealth or privilege plays no role in spiritual development, the only “inheritance” man possesses is what he takes with him from one life to the next, and that is karma which is mismanaged, can lead to endless wandering from life to life until a permanent, positive growth towards nirvana is established.

The second part of the parable, present in both versions, is the son’s return home. In the Christian version, the son finally comes to his senses and asks himself “How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death” (Luke 15:17)! He plans to return to his father, beg for forgiveness of his sins, and ask to be put to work, and so goes home. The son in the Buddhist version makes no such conscious decision to go home; instead his wandering takes him to a magnificent estate where he sees a king-like figure being tended to by servants, he cannot recognize his own father amongst his father’s wealth. The son runs away in fear and his father, “recognized him immediately. His heart was filled with great joy and at once he thought: Now I have someone to entrust my storehouses of wealth and possessions to” (Lotus, 2)! So he sends one of his messengers to fetch his son. The messenger ends of scaring the son and the father lets his son go, becoming aware of his son’s desire to live a self-abasing life. He then sends out to servants in dirty garb to offer him work removing excrement at twice the regular wage, and the son accepts, returning home to his father, unbeknownst of course. In the Christian parable, the process of the son coming to his senses and wanting to come home to beg forgiveness for his sins, despite whatever humiliation he would go through at the hands of his other brother, is symbolic of the process of repentance. That is, confessing and coming to terms with ones sin and asking forgiveness of god. This represents the second event in man’s return to the light of god, recognizing his sin and repenting. In the Buddhist version, the son’s wandering is symbolic of the cycle of samsara, of birth and rebirth, or reincarnation. An individual will wander the stages of life, gaining or losing merit with every lifetime, until it culminates with the realization that leads to enlightenment and nirvana.

The last part of both parables is the reception of the son back home. In the Christian parable, the father runs out to embrace his son who was lost and is now found. He dresses his son in the best robes, gives him sandals, and slaughters the fattened calf to have a feast. Instead of the son humiliating himself by returning to the shame he received upon his departure, the father runs out to embrace his returning son, saving his son the humiliation. The son does not even finish repenting and confessing his sorrow over his sins before his father interrupts and brings all the gifts out to him. In the Buddhist version, his son’s reaction to the messenger suggests to the father that any sort of instant father-son reestablishment is not going to happen, and, understanding his son’s attitude, offers him work removing excrement through two of his other servants. The father often disguises himself and goes to the son who is working and encourages him to work hard. He promises to increase his salary and offers to cover his basic needs like food and shelter. This process goes on for twenty years; all the while the son is living in a small hut performing menial labor, until the father become ill and makes the son a sort of accountant over all his wealth. The son does not lose sight of his inferiority and beings to familiarize himself with the wealth, what goes in and out of the storehouses. It is not until the son comes to improve his outlook and despise his former lifestyle of menial tasks that the father feels he is ready and gathers all the relatives, the ministers, and administrators of the region and confesses that the son is in fact his son and entrusts all of his wealth to him. This process symbolizes the process by which the Buddha guides those who listen to the Dharma along the path towards nirvana and Buddhahood. With every passing life, one must gain merit to deserve his position in the coming life, working little by little towards enlightenment. It is not an instantaneous happening; it is something that must occur over thousands of lifetimes. The father’s reception of the son in the Christian version symbolizes God’s loving embrace of those who repent and confess their sins to him. Repentance allows one to return to God’s grace from sin. Coming back to God represents the third and final part in the process of returning to God’s grace. It is an emphasis on the fact that although no one strives for sin, that lifestyle is all too attractive and most fall victim to sin, but it is not the end of the road. Recognizing one’s wrongdoing, confessing one’s sins, and repenting to God can overcome any obstacles created by sin.

There is one very major difference between the two versions of the parable however, that of the presence of a second son in the Christian version. This second son spent his whole life working for his father, obeying him always, and when he approaches the house after his brother had returned and he hears music and laughter he becomes upset. He asks his father why he was celebrating his son who left and threw away his entire inheritance, but his father assures him that all that he owns will be his someday, but he must celebrate the return of his brother who was lost and is now found again. This character almost certainly reflects Jesus’ attitude toward the Pharisees, the “religious elites” of the time who were criticizing Jesus from delighting in the company of sinners. They considered themselves above people like that, too pure to spend time with defilers. But Jesus’ message was about love for all, embracing all who come to repent of their sins, regardless of the severity, and that is what the father is trying to tell the second brother, that despite his brother’s sins, he has come to ask forgiveness for them and they must show him love for it. Why the Buddhist version does not include a character like this is quite simple in that the two parables are meant to deliver two very different messages. The Christian version emphasizes that although sin is tempting and all fall to it occasionally, one can be cleansed through repentance and restored to God’s grace. The Buddhist version emphasizes the process of merit gaining from lifetime to lifetime and the fact that reaching the status of bodhisattva or even buddha takes many thousands of lifetimes. Humility is not as important in the Buddhist version and thus does not need the second brother.

While these two parables may seem to differ significantly on the surface, a brief examination of both versions of the Parable of the Lost Son can reveal some striking similarities and offers an insightful look into the values of beliefs of both religions. Cross-examining literature and teachings from two different religions is a very effective tool for further understanding each religion, it can also raise awareness of some commonalities between the two that were unheard of prior.

The socket has been introduced in pre-colonial Malaysia. Before the British colonial Malaysia, the village in the country, as in other parts of the world developed through land settlement or colonization. One of the popular methods was the “collective Pondok system”, which was particularly common in the Muda Region of Kedah. By this system, a group of settlers would gather around and a person who is well -versed in Islamic Knowledge or who had already established himself as a religious teacher .After the they found a suitable place , they will build their “Pondok” (huts) around a Madras; a religious center for worship as well as teaching. In the case where the group has been established, they would invite a religious teacher from elsewhere to set up a Madras among them.This religious teacher was also the “Imam” of the community, in the sense that he led five prayers daily in the mosque or “madsarah.”

The group of peasant will be going out to open land around the clusters of their “Pondok”, leaving their children to the teacher for religious education at day time. For those wives who are unable to work with their spouse in the land also will obtained religious instruction from the teacher. The peasants will receive religious at least one or twice a week and longer on Friday because it was a day of rest. They will spend more time in the mosque than the field.

As an appreciation for the service provided by the teacher, the peasants usually will collectively clear a piece of land and cultivate if for the teacher. Slowly, as the land become more productive and the production level of each peasant family exceeds the “nisab of 480 Gantang” [1] for each harvesting, the peasant family would pay skate at their 10 % of the gross yield of the paddy. According to “Afifudin”, those early days all the skate form a specific group in the Pondok system would go to the teacher. If a group of 50 sacked paying peasants would contribute a minimum of 2400 Gantang each year .As time goes by, the wealth of the teacher can be accumulated. The teacher can use the socket for the expansion of Madras.

During the colonial period in Malaysia especially Kelantan, zakat was administered by imam,who is is the local religious leader managed the zakat collection and surpervised by the division of inherited party.In order to finance the intensified activities ,the state required imams to surrender part of the zakat they collected at the village level.However,this menthod is only partially successful due to the British regime replaced Grahman’s ,the “Islamic administration” .The Grahman took charge of civil administration ,he divested the imams of their “civil” function .which were transfer to the headman (ketua kampong) .

According to secret institution in Malaysia .During British Colonial Period , The segregation between religion, custom and temporal matters took place during this period. All Islamic and Malay customs related matters were administered by a special body known as Majlis Agama Islam Negeri (MAIN). Other than that, the rest came under the purview of the British civil and criminal law system (Matters associated with socket were administered by MAIN. Accordingly, in Zakat Satu Tinjauan, Kelantan was the first state to establish the body which later became a model to other Malay States. Under this model, the Imam (spiritual leader) has been empowered to govern skate related matters and a portion of zakat collection would be delivered to the state government as a financial resource for Islamic affairs. That was how the administration of soaked developed until today which remain under the supervision of State Islamic Councils.

After the independence of Malaysia, New Economic Policy has been introduced.The zakat fund is use for investment purpose .In the early 1970s ,the minister of National and Rural Development ,Encik Ghaffae Baba,who was also the chairman of Mara ,urged all the state Religious Councils to invested substantial portion of their money (mostly derived from the collection of zakat) in Amanah Saham Mara .The objective is to eliminate the income gap between the ethnic group in Malaysia,especially the Muslim and Chinese.

The objective of Zakat

The primary objective of Zakat is to elevate the spirit of human being above the material acquisition.Consequently, Islam does not view the zakat payer as a mere of sore of funds,but as a person who always needs purification and cleansing, both spiritually and materially. The prophet (p) summaries this purpose in the ayat ,”sadaqa from hier wealth by which you might purify and cleanse them.

Zakat, when paid out of submission to the commad of Allah ,is a mean of purifying the soul of a Muslim from greed and miserliness.The vices of selfishness and greed must be controlled in order for human beings to elevate their spirits ,to succed in their social realtions in his life ,and gain admittance to paradise .Allah Almighty says, “Truly man is niggardly! (17:100) and “But people are prone to selfish greed.)Zakat is a purifier that trains Muslims to give and spend selflessly .It liberates their souls from the love of wealth and slavery to materials gains and acquisitions.

On top of that, zakat is a mean of training Muslims on virtues of generosity as much as it is a means of purificarion from greed .Being paid in repetitive pattern year after year ,regular zakat as well as zakat al-fitr train Muslims to give and spend for charitable purpose. The Qur’an describes believers as the righteous who have the virtue of spending for good reasons.The very second sura of the Qur’an begins, “Alif .Lam .Mim.That is the Book with no doubt .In it is guidance for the godfearing :those who believe in Unseen and establish the prayer and give of what we have provided for them.”This exhortation is reiterated many times in the Qur’an ,such as “Those who give away their wealth by night and by day ,secretly and openly ,”: “Those who give in times of both ease and hardship” and “The steadfast ,the truthful ,the obedient ,the givers ,and those who seek forgivness before dawn.”

Also ,once a person is trained to spend on public interests and to give to his brethren out of his own wealth, he is most likely to be freed from any urge to transgress on other people’s wealth and possessions.

Besides that, zakat trains people to acquire divine characteristic.If man purified of miserliness and greed and becomes accustomed to the habit of giving and spending, his soul is elevated abouve low human trait of covetousness, “Truly man is niggardly!” (17:100) and aspire to the height of Divine perfection, since one of the characteristic of Allah is absolute and unlimited mercy, powers, theoretical and practical .Allah obliges zakat in order to perfect human souls in graciousness to oher people ,as the prophet says, Train yourselves to attributes of Allah.This encouragement to spend throught zakat and voluntary charity resulted with time,u in the emergence of charitable trusts all over Muslim world,trusts devoted not only to helping the poor and needy but to all causes for human beings as well as animals.

In addition ,zakat is to shows expression of thankfulness to Allah .Gratitude and thankfulness are among the best characteristics of human beings.Zakat is an expression of thankfulness to Allah for the bouties .He gives on us .Allah, says al-Ghazali, has gives on human spiritual and materials bounties.Prayers and other acts of physical worship express gratitude for the blessing of creation, while zakat and other acts of donator worship express gratitude for the material blessings of Allah .The concept that zakat is thanks Allah for His bounties is s widespread and deeply rooted in the consciousness of Muslims that it is common to say that one must give zakat in thanks for the grace of sight ,hearing,health ,knowledge, etc.

Also, zakat stimulates personality growth in those who pay it .Through helping others overcome their financial difficulties , zakat payers are enriched by feelings of self-worth and fufilment . Zakat also helps offer the payer’s self to others and grow throught helping them and gives the payer a noble sense of victory over his base desires and material drives-over his owns shaytan.

Last but not least, zakat is to purifies wealth.This is because zakat is a right to the poor , not paying it means keeping something that belongs to others intermingled worth one’s wealth and this brings Allah’s wrath on the whole wealth. The Prophet (p) says, “If you pay zakat on your wealth ,you have taken away its evil.”

Types of zakat

Zakat is divided into several types :

Zakat of Income
Zakat of Savings
Zakat of Business
Zakat of KWSP/LTAT
Zakat of Share
Zakat of Livestock
Zakat of Gold and Silver
Zakat of Crops
Zakat of Income

Extra payment received by an individual from their employer or individual itself in the form of physical energy or physically or professional employment for specific day, month and yearly also been required to pay zakat.

Employment income includes: –

1) The annual salary

2) Other allowances

3) Unpaid wages

4) Other remuneration such as bonuses, etc.

Method Of Calculation

First Method

Using gross income (without deduction) 2.5% on gross income per year.

Example :

Total gross income per year : RM 25,000.00

Amount of zakat (2.5%) : RM 625.00

Monthly Payment : RM 625.00 /12 = RM 52.08

Second Method

Using the net income (Income year less allowable expenses per year) x 2.5%

Expenses allowed deduction (per year): -:-

Self : RM 8,000.00

Wife : RM 5,000.00

Children : RM 1,000.00

KWSP : 11% from gross income workers

Parents Contribution : RM (amount given) per month x 12 months

Contributions to organizations that pay the zakat (for example: Lembaga Tabung Haji, Takaful)

Zakat of savings

Contribution of workers and employer’s to KWSP People Provident Fund , Soldiers Provident Fund (LTAT) are also required to pay zakat as the concept is similar to savings but the different is savings of KWSP and LTAT could not be withdraws anytime wherenever they like and it is subject the rules.

Fixed Deposit

Fixed deposit of RM 100,000 was kept for a year without the excluded (assumed nisab charity at that RM 9430.00)

Then charity is required to produce are: RM 100,000 x 2.5% = RM 2.500

Regular Deposit

Method Of Calculation

(Duration haul is January 5, 1999 until February 7, 2000) (Assuming nisab of charity at that RM 3,323.50)

So zakat are :

(Balances with lower interest bank refused WITH) X 2.5%

(RM 9,115.00 – RM 115.00) x 2.5% = RM 225.00

Zakat of Business

Zakat been given out by Sole Propirate, Partnership, Cooperative Society, Societies and Organization which had reached one year and the time limit.

Method Of Calcutions

[ ( Current Assets – Current Liability ) + Coordination x Percentage of Muslims Share x ZAKAT ABILITY ( 2.5 % ) ].

Zakat of KWSP

Contributions of employees and employers into the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Army (LTAT),or the like imposed zakat as conceptually the same as saving money, but with the difference amount of savings, LTAT and so on shall not be issued at anytime because and subject to regulations that is fixed.

CALCULATION METHOD :

METHOD 1

2.5% of the contribution that issued once money issued.

METHOD 2

2.5% of contribution every employee is based on the annual statement

Zakat of shares

Zakat which is given out for investment which hasreachedh its time limit and minimum value.

METHOD OF CALCULATION

2.5 % the value of lowest share – share which is own for one year minus for shared borrowed.

If the lowest value is not determined, use the value beginning early in the year or in the year or whichever is the lowest.

For shareholders which must be owned by investors. Muslims in the long term to gain control a company or firm so his payment for zakat will be based on the calculations that it will not affect the the importance of other Muslims to get hold of the company.

If any of the owner’s shares has not reached one year, but the whole property being changed for a number of time for one year from shares to cash and vice versa, so use the lowest value with the mixture of money and shares,shares with basic to count zakat multiply 2.5 %.

Zakat of Livestock

Livestock zakat is property zakat that required to be taken out in perfect the conditions. Domestic animal that obliged to pay zakat is among them such as goat, , cattle , camel, sheep, buffalo. Prophet S.A.W said ” From Muaz Ibnu Jabal, had said, RasulullahS.A.W was sending me to Yaman and ask me to collect zakat from each of 30 cows, 1 lamb musinnah (1 female cattle aged up to 3 years ) and every 30 cows, tabi’ or tabiah ( 1 male or female cattle aged up to 2 years).” The livestock that we would like to give a zakat must be perfect and no defects such as missing the foot or hand and so on.

COWS/BUFFALOES

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

30-39 tail

1 tail, age 1 year / male

40-59 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / female

60-69 tail

2 tail, age 1 year / male

70-79 tail

1 tail, age 1 year / male

and 2 tail, age 2 year / male

80-89 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / female

90-99 tail

3 tail, age 1 year / male

100-109 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / female

and 2 tail, age 1 year / male

110-119 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / female

and 1 tail, age 1 year / male

120 tail above

tail, age 2 year / female

and 3 tail, age 1 year / male

GOATS

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

40-120 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / male or female

121-200 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / male or female

201-399 tail

3 tail, age 2 year / male or female

Subsequent additions : Every of 100 tail plus

plus 1 tail, age 2 year / male or female

SHEEP

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

40-120 tail

1 tail, age 1 year/ male @ female

121-200 tail

2 tail , age 1 year / male @ female

201-399 tail

3 tail, age 1 year/ male @ female

Subsequent additions : every 100 tail

increased by 1 tail,age 1 year / male @ female.

Zakat of Silver and Gold

Gold and silver is a mineral that is required to charity. This is because these metals are very useful as it uses an exchange value of all things. As for other jewelry than gold and silver like diamond, pearl, silk, copper, are not obligatory zakat on it.

Nisab zakat gold used = 200gram

Gold zakat Nisab unused = 85gram

Zakat Of Crops

Zakat which is upon basic food which has reached the stage of satisfaction for the state which has 363 gantang / 1300 kg like paddy, wheat, cereals and so on.