iSLAM in the east: Importance of RELG

The “fearsome reputation” of the Mongols is known throughout most of the world today.  There are so many accounts of the Mongol conquests and illustrations of Mongol warriors.  The Mongols were extremely nomadic peoples of Inner Asia who drank the milk and ate the flesh of their horses.  The horse was the major source of travel and food for the Mongols and held extreme importance within their nomadic tradition.  The Mongols never practiced agriculture or farming and possessed no understanding of farming.  Of course there is no proper discussion of the Mongols without mentioning the leader of the Mongols-Genghis Khan.  Genghis Khan was the great ruler and conqueror who greatly expanded the Mongol territory.  Genghis was concerned with breaking down the tribal structure of the Mongol peoples in order that the military, or army, be the main focus of loyalty.  He attempted to create a disciplined fighting force in which serving in the army was mandatory.  The Mongols used terror to plunder these cities and literally “take over.” “Blind obedience to the orders of the Great Khan was expected from everyone.”  In addition to being great warriors and extremely nomadic, the Mongols had a very interesting relationship with religion.

            The religion associated with the Mongols almost always is Shamanism. The Shaman is the “chief religious specialist” of the Inner Asian world.  The Shaman is important to the conversion narrative of Inner Asia.  Despite his importance, he is seen as a “loner.”  The role of the Shaman and Shamanism itself is very spiritualistic.  Despite the spiritualistic role, the Mongols seemed to be interested in communal life and “communal well being.”  Is this what facilitated the encounter of the traditions of Islam and that of the Mongols?  Islamization is difficult to understand in the context of Inner Asia.  Islam has a strict set of rules.  There are rulings for everything and many Muslims view Islam to be a “way of life” or culture.  So, it becomes extremely difficult to mix tradition, Mongol tradition especially, with the tradition of Islam.  In order to be successful in Islam as a Mongol convert, it was necessary to give up some of the traditions and customs of the Mongols, like drinking for instance.  This does not mean that religion was not important to the Mongols because it was.  There were debates concerning religion and choosing the best religion for the community and many people converted to Islam and even other religions outside of Shamanism.   

It is very interesting though because the dynamics of Mongol tradition and society did not necessarily lend its way to Islam in some ways.  Genghis Khan wanted to be seen as the absolute authority and “he could not afford to tolerate challenges to his authority.”  In Islam, men should not blindly follow other men but that they should obey Allah and make their decisions based on the what is right according to Qur’an and Sunnah.  Another interesting aspect concerning the interplay of Mongol and Islamic tradition is the drinking component.  In Islam there is not drinking.  However, in Mongol tradition this was big.  In Islam, if you are intoxicated, your prayers will not be accepted for 40 days which is an extreme detriment.  There were many Mongols who converted to Islam, but did not give up or sacrifice the drinking that was still so much apart of Mongol tradition.  Perhaps to the Mongols, religion was important and they possessed a desire to see the truth.  But they were too immersed in their own tradition and culture as Mongols to completely immerse themselves into a somewhat different way of life despite their belief in the religious doctrine.  One final point of interest is the discussion of Islam as a “change of heart” or a “change of state.”  Deweese believes that the name “Muslim,” one who submits to the will of Allah, is very important and enough for the one to say I am Muslim in Inner East Asia.  In my opinion, the word Muslim is very important and it does have a powerful meaning.  However, there needs to be a change of heart.  A change of heart cannot be necessarily seen. But, it can be seen in some extent through ones actions.  If Islam is in your heart, there would be no question of sacrificing drinking and gambling and acts that are prohibited in Islam.  The Mongols seemed to view religion as a change of state and this may be why it was so easy for them to go back and forth.  But religion was still important to them…right? 

Slavery: UNtangling the BONDS

As Ehud R. Toledano states in his chapter on “Understanding Enslavement as a Human Bond,” “understanding why slavery was so natural in so many societies does not lead to condoning it.”  This quote reflects the core of Toledano’s argument against slavery.  He also says that no writer may claim “the moral high ground” hereby attacking the good treatment argument.  The good treatment argument refers to the treatment of the slaves being better than the treatment of many of the sultan’s free subjects.  Toledano’s position on enslavement can be compared to the position presented by Linda S. Northrup.  Northup seems to arguing that slavery has more good than bad while Toledano believes that the abolition of legal bondage, regardless of severity, was a positive step toward true human freedom. 

            Toledano’s discussion of slavery is large and encompassing.  It considers enslavement of African peoples, enslaved women, and enslaved men.  However, Northrup discusses enslavement specifically of the Mamluks.  As David Ayalon states, the Mamluks were the determining factor when it came to defining military boundaries as they helped to expand Islamic territory.  The literal meaning of Mamluk is “owned” and refers to a slave who was trained to be apart of the military and of high status.  Northrup includes a long quote by Ibn Khaldun who discusses the “divine blessing that is slavery.”  He says that “by means of slavery, they learn glory and blessing and are exposed to divine providence.”  He goes on to say that they enter the Muslim religion as a result of slavery and are cured.  Hence slavery is very beneficial-not only does it benefit or cure the slave who accepts Islam but “Islam rejoices in the benefit which it gains throughout them” and the kingdom flourishes. 

            Toledano seems to disagree with the idea of slavery being a “cure” or a “blessing.”  He sees human freedom as a “better fit.”  Toledano provides a view of the slaves themselves in which he reveals that many of them did not warmly embrace slavery.  There was a “natural desire for freedom” referred to in government and official documents.  It may be true that there were varying degrees of slavery, some more severe than other forms of slavery.  But, as Toledano hints, “slavery is slavery.”  People, slaves, would prefer to be free-bottom line.  The Islamic world was bent upon justifying enslavement even by saying that their society has slaves but it is not a slave society.  In reference to the Mamluks, it does seem that they were treated well and it is interesting that there was such a strong sense of loyalty between slave and master.  These slaves would become masters.  Great, right?  Well, did the men want to leave their homes and families at such a young age and be trained to be a Mamluk?  Was this better for them?  Who is to say?

            The questions posed are the source of comparison between the sources.  It seems that there is this idea of the beneficial aspect of enslavement-the good-and then the desire for freedom.  Is there a right answer to this debate? In my opinion, having freedom and the ability to make a decision makes all the difference.  Leave it up to the individual.  Slavery is slavery, enslavement is enslavement regardless of the culture in which it exists.  Therefore, I agree with Toledano when he states that no one can claim any “moral high ground” when it comes to the issue of enslavement.