Karen Armstrong & Salman Rushdie

Karen Armstrong & Salman Rushdie
Karen Armstrong wrote about the roots of religion and how they are instrumental in modeling a compassionate and empathic person. But with modernization, the virtues that were cultivated during the axial age have denigrated and people have lost the meaning and essence of those longstanding habits and traditions. She, therefore, highlights what has been lost with time and how the beliefs kept the communities during the period in check and with minimal violence. On the other hand, Salman Rushdie directly addresses the impact of the lost virtues of the current society, and he bases his arguments on the Islamic faith. Rushdie points out the shortcomings of Muslims in practicing the virtues that will identify them as exemplary and also distance themselves from the acts of violence and terrorism linked to them. The two authors agree in the major aspects that religions should promote among its followers for it to serve its purpose and to remain relevant.
Armstrong in her essay points out that the axial traditions put emphasis on the significance of the people of a particular faith to fully understand themselves first before concerning themselves with other external matters. In the phrase, “How could you talk about other-worldly phenomena, when there was so much that you did not understand about earthly matters?” (Armstrong, 565). Where she illustrated how Confucius discourage his followers from speculating in things that did not concern them but instead try and understand what is within first.

They both agree when Rushdie talks about the Islamic people who blame the West for their misfortunes and link the, with vices such as the installation of regimes on them.However, this issue is not primarily the problem of the US, and he suggests that the key to correcting this is by Muslims taking responsibility for their problems. In doing this, they will be able to solve their problems and distance themselves from the influence of the West.
The axial religions as asserted by the Karen were oriented to individualism rather than on the societal view of things. Whereby the leaders of that time tried to build on the character of a person as the basis for developing a robust and sane society. Because by teaching an individual to practice Jian Ai, the will grow to avoid conflicts and quarrels when they come together as a society (567). In his essay about Islam, Salman depicts the consequences following the notion of thinking and controlling groups. They end up becoming extremists and brewing conflicts not only with the so-called outsiders but also within themselves. In the case of the Iranian regimes and the Taliban who were both Muslim but are involved in brawls because they work in groups and aligning the interests of all the participants of groups is complex (Rushdie, 588). The same is also seen in nations whereby Muslim countries conflict publicly despite being bounded in the same religion; all this is owed to the lack of upholding the core virtues by the individuals.
The two authors agree on the issue on the following of beliefs and political agendas aimlessly only because the leaders call for them to do so (587). They emphasize how these chauvinistic acts give the people a means to justify some of their deeds that are usually unorthodox. The purposely commit these atrocities for their selfish interests and then align themselves with religion, these doings impede advancement as explicated by the Chinese sages (Armstrong, 568). According to Rushdie’s article, these baseless beliefs are seen when Muslims who are not well versed with the Koran only follow the traditions and beliefs that are regressive. For example, the sequestration of women. The Muslims also loathe the Americans whose aim is to bring peace in regions of war and claiming without reason that they will bring about “Westoxication” of their Holy country (Rushdie, 587). This negativity towards modernization and advancement is due to insignificant beliefs that are fueled by the leaders and people just follow.
In conclusion, both authors suggest the steps and the aspects of the old traditions that need to revitalize to realize a new, resilient and durable religion that caters for the concerns of all the people. As the Christians teachings calls for the love of enemies, and the Confucius coined the golden rule, “Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.” (Armstrong, 567). In guiding the deeds of people. This maxim ensures that people take personal initiatives to uphold such virtues of selflessness and to enable individuals to coexist harmoniously and to desist from violence and observe ahimsa. Salman suggests the proper understanding of the Koran and to avoid the guesswork and by the Muslims taking responsibility in casting out the evil beliefs and vices that are uncharacteristic of their religion (Rushdie, 589). In spite of the two authors arguing from a different perspective they both share the same ideas, in that, Karen points out the virtues of the axial religions and Salman elaborates on the consequences of drifting from the stated virtues.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Karen. “What’s God Got to Do with it?” Muller, Gilbert H. Issues Across the Disciplines. 12th. New York: The McGraw-Hill Reader, 2014. 565-568. Print.
Rushdie, Salman. “Not About Islam?” Muller, Gilbert H. Issues Across the Disciplines. 12th. New York: The McGraw-Hill Reader, 2014. 587-589. Print.