Early Religious Leadership: Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam

J. Andrew McLaughlin
© 2001

How did the political leaders of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam encourage the growth of their chosen religious communities? What were the differences and similarities between the actions of each? A number of factors must be examined in answering these questions; clearly, the circumstances surrounding the rise of each faith are separated by significant geographical and cultural boundaries. Intuitively, the history of human civilization in India circa the third century B.C.E. was far different than that of fourth century C.E. Roman Empire. Likewise the setting in the Arabian peninsula of the seventh century C.E. This significant diversity helps to explain the differences between the histories of these future World religions, but it also makes the similarities that much more striking. How, then, do these histories differ, and how are they the same? For example, how was military expansion a factor in each case? How did each leader deal with non-believers and dissenters? How much emphasis was placed on religious unity? Was there any separation between church and state? How did each leader’s religious conversion compare with the others? Finally, how did each faith address the plight of the less privileged individuals of society?

In the case of Buddhism, "the person generally regarded as dramatically expanding Buddhism both within and beyond the Indian subcontinent was the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (ruled ca. 273-232 B.C.E.)" (1), whereas in the case of Christianity, "the Roman emperor Constantine (ruled 306-337 C.E.), the first emperor to become a Christian, is usually seen as the key figure" (2). Alternatively, in the case of Islam, the prophet Muhammad himself (and his immediate successors – the "Caliphs") began spreading the faith across the Arabian peninsula circa 622 C.E.

Thus can be observed one of the first, most obvious things that sets Islam apart from the other religions: Muhammad was Islam’s founder and recognized as the prophet of his God, and graduated from his initial role as holy-man to that of a political leader: "The history of Islam is very different from that of Buddhism and Christianity in that, from the beginning, it was both a religious and political community; Muhammad was in some ways his own Constantine" (3). Muhammad’s peers, Ashoka and Constantine, were primarily political figures who used their power and influence to spread the word about their chosen faiths. Neither Siddhartha Gautama ("the Buddha"), or Jesus of Nazareth ever led an army in support of their respective causes, and both Ashoka and Constantine presided over existing empires, each enjoying comparatively stable political climates. Thus, it appears that the presence or absence of military force does not represent a common thread between the histories of the three religions. It is necessary to examine a number of other factors.

Given the more militaristic approach of Muhammad and his Muslim followers in spreading their new religion, were they also less tolerant of religious disunity than their Buddhist and early Christian counterparts? In a selection from the Ashoka "Rock and Pillar Edicts" ordered carved by King Ashoka (4), he declares "King Priyadarsi [Ashoka] honors men of all faiths…" (5). It is also decreed that "The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others" (6). Clearly, then, the Buddhist leadership of Ashoka was at least theoretically tolerant of non-believers. The Roman empire under Constantine was similarly tolerant; indeed, it is believed that the majority of his subjects at this time were adherents of the Rome’s traditional pagan religion. Christianity at this time was "…certainly a sizeable minority" (7). Although in an edict to the provinces his tone is less conciliatory than that of Ashoka, Constantine also advocates tolerance:

"Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquility which they have who believe … Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires … let them have, if they please, their temples of lies…" (8).

Muhammad and his Companions, on the other hand, appear to have been much less inclined to show such tolerance. While on the one hand, Muhammad in a selection from the Qur’an (Sura 2:256) states, "There is no compulsion in matters of faith" (9), his actions reveal a contradictory practice. Indeed, much of the remainder of the Prophet’s life was spent compelling others to join his religion, often by violence. In the Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad is cited thusly: "Prepare against the infidels what force you are able, that you may strike terror into your enemy and that of Allah" (10).

How much emphasis did each leader place on religious unity? How did they attempt to prevent the fragmentation of various groups of followers from the ‘core’ religious group? All three demonstrate a strong belief in the importance of internal harmony, but again there are differences in their respective implementations. In the cases of the Buddhists and Muslims, there was not an obvious central authority such as the Catholic Church; any authority rested simply with the current political leadership. However, King Ashoka’s edicts suggest that disruptive Buddhist followers should be shamed for disobedience:

"The monk or nun who disrupts the Samgha [the community of Buddhist monks and nuns] shall be required to put on white robes [instead of the customary yellow] and to live in non-residence (anabasasi). It is my desire that the Samgha be united and endure forever" (11).

Constantine, on the other hand, merely implores the Council of Bishops at Nicaea to work towards harmony within the Church: "In my judgment, intestine strife within the Church of God is far more evil and dangerous than any kind of war or conflict; and these our differences appear to me more grievous than any outward trouble…" (12). However, Muhammad and the Muslims again appear to take the more heavy-handed approach to dissent – it is ordered in the Hadith that "If anyone comes to you when you are united under one man, and tries to split you or divide your Umma [the religious/political community of Muslims], then kill him" (13). Thus once again, Islam can be observed as taking a different approach to religious unity than Buddhists or Constantine’s Christians.

Under each of the religious leaders, what was the separation (if any) between church and State? Here there is more similarity between the three religions. Clearly, Muhammad is the strongest example of unity between politics and religion. As the Prophet of Allah, he was of course entirely preoccupied with the spread of Islam, and as such the vast majority of his political/military actions were (at least nominally) taken in pursuit of that goal. On the other hand, early in the reign of Constantine (and like many Emperors of the later empire) he was considerably occupied by the political business of Rome; "Constantine was the son of Emperor Constantius, but his claim to the throne was challenged by a number of rivals" (14). Indeed, he had been in power for six years before issuing his "Edict of Toleration" (15), which did no more than allow Christians the right to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Constantine’s edict refers to the Christians in the third person, suggesting that the Emperor himself was, at least officially, a pagan at the time. Later in his reign, however, Constantine appears to have been more inclined to suggest a sort of unity between the affairs of church and state; the biographer Eusebius recalls that in his address to the Council of Nicaea, the Emperor states "I also am a bishop, ordained by God to overlook whatever is external to the Church" (16). It is evident that King Ashoka also believed in the government’s spiritual role. In his edicts, the King declares "My highest officials, who have authority over large numbers of people, will expound and spread the precepts of Dharma" (17). Thus, in this regard there is a pattern of moderate similarity amongst the leadership figures.

All three leaders experienced a religious conversion during their adult lives. How did each conversion experience compare to the others? In this regard there is again considerable parity between the three. There is not much known about the experience of the Mauryan King: "At some point in his life, Ashoka accepted Buddhism, although traditions vary about exactly who converted him" (18). In any case, he has this fact in common with both Muhammad and Constantine. Until his religious reawakening, Muhammad was a merchant (19). However, much more information has survived about his experience, which involved visions of angelic beings and voices from heaven. Likewise, it is claimed that Constantine experienced a holy vision, which commanded him to conquer in the name of God (20). Although King Ashoka is not known to have had such a revelation, there exists a very strong similarity between the experiences of Constantine and Muhammad.

How did each faith, as promoted by Ashoka, Constantine, and Muhammad, address the plight of the less privileged individuals of society? King Ashoka, at least, attempted to lead his ministers and followers by example; his practice was to prostrate himself in the presence of Buddhist monks. The Asokavadana tells that "Not long after King Ashoka had come to have faith in the teaching of the Buddha, he started honoring Buddhist monks, throwing himself at their feet whenever he saw them…" (21). That he did this, regardless of the social status of the monks in question, shows that he bestowed great honor upon those – even from even the lowliest castes – who dedicated themselves to the religious life. This has much in common with Christian teaching. Constantine paid similar favor to the ministers of the Church, who were "…mean in their attire and outward appearance; yet not so in his estimation, since he thought he saw not the man as seen by the vulgar eye, but the God in him" (22). Likewise, Muhammad stressed godliness above social status: "Even if a mutilated slave is made your commander, and he leads you in accord with the Book of God, hear him and obey" (23). This populist approach can be considered a factor in the great success of each of these worldwide religious movements; what could be more compelling to the common person than the opportunity to rise above his or her station in life? Through devotion to each respective religion, this goal was within reach.

Thus, there are a number of common historical threads linking the faiths of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. Although the methods of the religious leaders Ashoka, Constantine, and Muhammad differ in a number of important ways, the similarities are more striking than the discrepancies. The fact remains that these very different faiths share much in common despite vast differences in the cultures, histories, geographies, and time periods which spawned them. Islam has a record of militarism which is not found amongst the Buddhists or early Christians, and Islam’s historical treatment of non-believers and dissenters is more firm than that of the other faiths. However, each of the three leaders believed in some degree of unity between the church and the state. Also in common is that each acquired his convictions through conversion, and all three faiths were significantly populist in nature. All of these factors suggest interesting and convincing parallels in the respective histories of these three great religions.

 

References

  1. Weisner, Merry E., Wheeler, William Bruce, Doeringer, Franklin M., and Page, Melvin E., Discovering the Global Past: A Look at the Evidence, Volume I: To 1600 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 159
  2. Ibid., 159
  3. Ibid., 162
  4. Ibid., 164
  5. Ibid., 169
  6. Ibid., 170
  7. Ibid., 162
  8. Ibid., 177
  9. Ibid., 180
  10. Ibid., 184
  11. Ibid., 170
  12. Ibid., 177
  13. Ibid., 181
  14. Ibid., 162
  15. Ibid., 173
  16. Ibid., 178
  17. Ibid., 169
  18. Ibid., 161
  19. Ibid., 162
  20. Ibid., 176
  21. Ibid., 172
  22. Ibid., 177
  23. Ibid., 181

Bibliography

Weisner, Merry E., Wheeler, William Bruce, Doeringer, Franklin M., and Page, Melvin E., Discovering the Global Past: A Look at the Evidence, Volume I: To 1600 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997)

Stearns, Peter N., Adas, Michael, Schwartz, Stuart B., and Gilbert, Marc Jason, World Civilizations: The Global Experience, Volume 1: Beginnings to 1750, Third Edition (Toronto: Addison-Wesley, 2001)