The Use and Misuse of Origins
in Religious Debates

November 12, 2007

Teaching Islam makes one hyper-conscious of the arguments that swirl around the idea of origin. Back and forth one can go about whether Islam was violent from the start or peaceful.. both sides generally press their claim a little too hard. More important is to ask why an origin matters?

The assumption I often detect in discussions about religion is that somehow the beginning is the true version of a religion. A religion becomes set in stone with respect to its true character. That proposition is so manifestly false as to hardly need refuting. At their origins religions begin a long historical development. A religion at B, C, and D points of its development is every bit as truly itself as it was at its origin. Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Pat Robertson.. what does anyone gain by labeling one or all of them "not truly Christian". Each is worlds apart from the others.. and a long way from Galilee.. but there could be no point to arguing about which is truly Christian.

If one wants to understand from a historical perspective the development and identity of a religious group, the way to do that is to examine the immediate context. If my goal is to understand a religion as it existed at point D in the above graph, the way to do that will be to look back to point C and try to get a handle on the specific historical influences that moved the religion a little further down the road. Perhaps broad social unrest led to a tightening of hierarchical control; perhaps a greater familiarity with another religious tradition, led to an attempt to find theological common ground. Religious development will always be driven by context.

In an academic historical reconstruction of religious history, there will almost never be a need to refer to origin. But that does not mean that origin will not figure prominently in sectarian discussions. When there is a felt need to reform a religious tradition, that reform will often be justified by means of an appeal to an origin. This has proven to be a powerful argument in many religious traditions. "We have gotten away from the truth and must return to the original teaching of our leader." It is difficult to directly counter such an appeal, so the other side will often present its own version of the origin. But just because the sectarian debate about reform is cast in terms of the origin, does not mean that is what the reform is really about. We will be better off if we stick with a close analysis of the immediate historical motivations.

So can we forget about origins? Should anyone be interested in my class on the Qur'an.. which is largely a look at the origins of Islam? I would say yes, for the following reason:

What arises at the origin is a set of concepts and ideas that come to define a religious tradition. In Islam one can right away think of the prophethood of Muhammad, the revelation of the Qur'an, the unity of God, and the call for submission. These concepts remain the boundaries for any definition of Islam. The tradition can develop and change, but what makes that later tradition "Islamic" is its continued connection to these concepts. These concepts tend to be abstractions, and not historical events. What we study are the plastic outlines of a tradition and not a defining and central essence, as defined by what someone "really did".