Victimhood and theodicy in Christianity,
Islam and Hinduism.
Joep Oomen
ANR: s193805
Victimology and Criminal Justice
Supervisor: dr. M.F. Ndahinda
Second Reader: prof. dr. A. Pemberton
1
The inspiration for this thesis was the feeling of complete perplexity after having read Elie
Wiesel's The Trial of God. The irony being that here, following that mythic story of Judaic
forebearing and staunch resilience in the face of inescapable victimhood, I have opted to not
discuss the notions of Judaic victimhood or how Jews answer the theodicy question. Those are
succinctly answered in Wiesel's brief novelisation of his original play and I urge any reader to
go out and read it for themselves. I had also very early on made the decision to not discuss
two different religious groups out of fear that whatever I wrote would seem polemic and/or
polarising from the onset. That is not to say that any of the three groups' inclusion is a third
wheel of sorts, rather these are the three largest religious groups on the face of our Earth and I
reasoned that therefore there must be plenty to discuss.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
4
Chapter I: Forgiveness, endurance and acceptance; Christian views on victimhood
8
Chapter II: Endurance, patience and piety; Islamic notions of victimhood
17
Chapter III: Reciprocity, acceptance and sacrifice: Hinduism's views on victimhood
27
Chapter IV: Uncovering current views on religious victimhood through interviews
38
Chapter V: Perspectives on theodicy
49
Chapter VI: Caveats and conclusions
54
References
55
3
Introduction
Victimhood can be expressed as a state in which one is victimised or, some theorise, in which
one feels victimised. The concept is debated by victimologists, criminologists and social
scientists amongst many others. The relatively new field of victimology aims to better
understand the interactive relationships between victim, perpetrator and the society that
judges them. It also keeps a delicate balance between trying to treat existing victims justly and
actively searching for a way to prevent further victimisation from occurring. Knowing that
high-profile victims who garner media-attention will at times be shunned or blamed for their
own victimisation (Van Dijk, 2009), this same response can be expected in response to
victimisation experiences that aren't beamed across the world's media systems. There is a
possibility that the scale of victimisation might not matter in regard to the way society views
the victims it creates. The neighbour down the road who suffered an automobile accident, not
being able to pay her bills no matter how hard she works and the mother who is a victim of a
flood killing several of her family members share vastly different victimisation experiences
but both are simply branded 'victims', a uniform metaphorical badge stitched to their vests by
society. As many have argued, this attitude towards victims is not coincidence or accidental.
Rather a Western worldview raised on Christian morals through the ages was destined to view
victims the way it does as a telling yet perfunctory nod to the suffering of Christ. Van Dijk
(2009) reasoned that etymologically speaking the word 'victim' and its linguistic Western
cousins came into popular usage because it was the name first given to the Christ-figure, the
sufferer, the paragon. There is a passivity hidden in this term that seems obvious at first but
has far-reaching implications for what we expect victims to look like, act like and be like. Our
Western Christian tradition informs us that we should be passive victims. Victims that
conform to our archetypal notions reminiscent of the Christ-figure and the figure perpetuated
in a part of Christian doctrine. Speaking out, calling attention to your victimisation will garner
you averted gazes and gestures motioning you to keep your suffering to yourself. Indeed, this
notion of victimhood can be linked to Lerner and Simmons' just world theory (1966) to
provide an explanation for why we as a people object to seeing other people suffer. Our own
brains will provide us with a justification mechanism to derogate those who are suffering
unjustly so we can continue our day-to-day lives believing that good things happen only and
exclusively to good people and vice-versa. This two-stage mechanism goes a long way in
4
explaining human behaviour, from why we find celebrities enticing to victim blaming and a
great deal of what is in between.
Earlier, I proposed that it wasn't coincidence or accidental that Western society has certain
notions of victimhood. It had been imbedded in Western society by way of religious morals,
through doctrine, catechesis and scripture. A good Christian victim was one who behaved a
certain way and it is certainly possible that through the fact that Christianity was the major
religious stakeholder in the development of Western civilisation this notion turned from
notion to dogma. This admittedly focused view on what Western society tends to see as the
ideal victim begged the question: if this development happened mainly through Christianity,
what else could this religion have contributed to what we now see as 'victimhood'? And if one
major religion could have this effect on 'victimhood', could others? I propose to investigate in
this thesis in what ways three of the world's largest religions (Christianity, Islam and
Hinduism) have affected notions of victimhood. The first three chapters of this thesis will
therefore focus on what is written in scriptures on victims and more broadly on victimhood
itself. The fourth chapter will contrast these historic notions of religious victimhood with the
contemporary beliefs of religious group members, clergy and other experts on the same
concept. The concept of theodicy is inextricably linked to the concept of victimhood by virtue
of its underlying questions of suffering and evil. The historic-contemporary contrast will thus
not only answer the previous research questions concerning victimhood, it will also shine a
light on the different theodicies that my interviewees utilise to answer those questions.
Accordingly the fifth chapter of this thesis will focus on these theodicies, the ways in which
religious group members structure their belief systems to make sense of a volatile world.
My methodological approach will change to suit the different needs of the research. For the
first three chapters, I will read through scripture and other texts, some religious in nature,
others from academia. This will provide me with references to victimhood and inform me of
how the different religions approach victims. But while dogma and scripture are by their
natures immutable, the belief in these religious instruments is always subject to change. Belief
in a religion flows and is adapted by those who adhere to it to suit their own personal
experiences and needs. It is to that end that I believe that researching what notions are
currently being held is necessary to avoid portraying religious victimhood in an overly
focused, possibly archaic sense. For the second section of this thesis I will therefore gather
this information through interviews. I am planning to have these interviews with religious
experts and members of several religious groups to come to a clearer understanding of what
5
'victimhood' meant and means today. Concerning these interviews, I realise that I could walk
two distinct methodological paths. There is a quantitative measure that can be taken to ensure
an externally and ecologically valid conclusion but instead I opt here for a qualitative method.
Having used a quantitative method in similar previous research involving religion, I know that
questions involving religion can ask a lot of participants and are not always clearly
understood when posed in a questionnaire. To avoid non-answering and unworkable data
results, I therefore made the conscious decision to utilise the interviewing method to be able
to assist in explaining the subject matter and to make sure that the results are valid. Another
argument for preferring the qualitative over the quantitative method is that I believe that the
subject matter could provoke emotions in participants that would go unanswered when
utilising a questionnaire. These particular emotions might hinder the process of filling-out a
rather impersonal questionnaire but might be very valuable when encountered in a personal
interview. This does not mean that the qualitative method is the absolute best way to achieve
the results I am looking for (quantitative research would garner more statistically sound
results) but regarding the limitations of this research (time, money, connections to find
participants) it is the most suitable here. There are some other inescapable limitations
concerning this qualitative line of reasoning. Because of my personal involvement in the
interviews they might garner different responses than if I had disseminated questionnaires to
my interviewees, both due to my own personal idiosyncrasies in posing the questions but also
in the interviewees' ways of responding to them. Keeping these limitations in mind, I strongly
feel that the inherent subjectivity of religion (beliefs being personally constructed and the
nature of religion being metaphysical) makes the qualitative method preferrable here. For the
fifth chapter of this thesis, I will combine academic research into theodicy with the results
gathered from the theodicy question in the interviews. The chapter will present different sorts
of theodicies and which ones are still applicable to the religious zeitgeist of the now.
Where Elie Wiesel's The Trial of God (1995) explored the very matter of religious
subjectivity, he did so in a Judaic context. It is my hope that this thesis will be a fitting
companion piece to Wiesel's work for those wishing to understand cross-religious notions of
victimhood. Several instances in The Trial of God portray the characters discussing issues of
victimhood, the overarching, looming threat in the background being the pogroms executed in
a fictional town in an area akin to present-day Ukraine in the 17th century. These riotous
massacres have been going on for a while in the story and the Jewish main characters are
understandably worried that they too will fall prey to the murderous masses. A Christian
6
priest enters and asks them to vow to the Christian cross and denounce their Jewish beliefs in
an effort to both save their physical bodies and their immortal souls. Berish, an outspoken
Jewish innkeeper replies: 'It's like the Angel of Death offering to safeguard the living' (p.34).
What follows are discussions on the question of theodicy by and with Wiesel himself acted
out through his proxies. If there is a divine figure, an entity you perceive and name God, a
deity in which you believe houses the power to shape lives, why revere it/him/her if there is a
clear and present fear of death, evil and the like in your world? This question is known under
many names. The evidential problem of evil, the theodicy question and it is also seen in the
Epicurean paradox. It is a powerful question that is inextricably linked to victimhood. For in
all the questions evil facilitates nay necessarily precipitates victimhood. The answers to this
problem come from many different sources. Philosophy, evolutionary science, psychology
and of course religion will be a couple of those sources that I will use for the fifth chapter.
The particular field of study I'm investigating combines victimology with religious studies
and theology. Somewhat predictably this is a severely under-researched field of academia. In
my initial search for what would later become this thesis I came across only a handful of
articles seemingly discussing how religion has its place in the victimological process and only
then in a very minor way. One study reported on how Anglican clergy dealt with violence
directed at them and looked at the socio-cultural and macro-organisational factors underlying
the violence (Denney, Gabe & O' Beirne, 2008). In other research the effect of religious
involvement on fear of crime was discussed (Matthews, Johnson & Jenks, 2011). Some
research indicates that using faith and religion as a coping mechanism for victimhood is
effective, rating that mechanism as moderately to very helpful Brabeck & Guzmán (2008),
Park (2005). Lastly, Possamaï & Lee (2004) posited that fear of crime related to governmental
sanctions against new religious movements such as an anti-cult law passed in France in 2001.
This scarcity of articles posed a problem with two possible causes. On the one hand the
religious aspect of victimology might be so well known that it is not being written about in a
major manner by academics. On the other hand, there might be no clear understanding of its
implications and the lack of academic articles is simply because not a lot of research has been
done. The latter seems to be the case as Matthews et al. (2011) write in their article: 'However,
victimological analyses of religion are largely missing from (...) literature. This oversight is
surprising given the central role religion has been found to play in shaping the attitudes and
perceptions of its adherents.' Following this I take great pleasure in charting unknown
grounds, if only because it connected wonderfully with my reading of Wiesel's book.
7
Chapter I: Forgiveness, endurance and acceptance; Christian views on victimhood
1.1 Christianity, God and Jesus
Christianity is the largest religion in the world. It can be argued that this has been the case
since the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, the edict that made Christianity the state religion
of the Roman Empire, the largest empire of its time. Its 2,2 billion adherents in the present
(Pew Forum, 2012) believe in a monotheistic deity. Beyond that belief in a singular divine
figure, interpretations of what it means to be a Christian are eclectic. Some believe that Jesus
of Nazareth, the simple day laborer turned messiah, became Jesus Christ, the anointed one,
through his ordeals in life and culminating in his death on the cross and subsequent
resurrection. Others believe he had always been from divine seed, his birth being an
immaculate conception orchestrated by a unified yet fragmented godhood in the form of God
or the Holy Spirit. His path to divinity places him directly in the vicinity of God, either in a
trifecta of divine power together with The Father and The Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7-8, New
International Version), as the direct personifaction of The Word of God (Logos) (John 1:1,
NIV) or even as the manifestation of the actual God (1 Timothy 3:16, NIV). If there is a
central figure in Christian victimhood then it surely is Jesus of Nazareth. His sacrificial
iconography is known throughout the world. Some argue that the scapegoating of a person
irrationally sacrificed for a greater good was a common way of dissolving conflict in early
societies (Girard, 1977). In a society in turmoil like in the time of Christ, it would not be
unusual to see this phenomenon and subsequently it was only after the sacrifice had been
completed that the sacrificial victim would be ascribed divine powers, emanating from the
feeling that through the sacrifice, the community had become whole or better than before.
Jesus might be nothing more than a simple scapegoat in this light but his martyrdom became
something so much more than just the crucifixion of a rebel for early Christians who, feeling
the fires of persecution by Roman and Jewish authorities alike, grasped his story en masse as
something to cherish and revere. Christian martyrdom can be explained in different ways, but
surely Christ's martyrdom, his acceptance of his fate in the face of adversity and his passive
tolerance made him a figure worthy of devotion for ages to come (Castelli, 2006).
1.2 From Mount Sinai to the Mount of Beatitudes
The reasons for why the Christian faith is so diverse are numerous. Being the largest religion
in the world must have had its influence and the Christian faith, like all faiths, has been
8
employed by millions throughout the ages to suit their personal religious needs and
experiences. Another important reason for this diversity might be the persecution of
Christians throughout the ages, dulling and at times splintering convictions often times under
threat. It's tempting to think that all religions encounter these persecutions at one point in their
cycles and certainly the foundation on which Christianity was built has had its fair share of
persecution as well. Its Abrahamic roots are inextricably connected with a people suffering
under oppressive rule. Where Judaism focuses on this oppression (think of the Babylonian
exile or the Roman occupation of Jerusalem for instance) in scriptures by describing a better
world ahead for those who keep their faith, this focus on equanimity and virtue through
suffering was taken to its logical extreme in Christianity. It endeavoured to uphold charity,
care for the weak, ultimate gelassenheit in the face of oppression and violence and a belief
that passive victimhood trumped active retaliation. Indicative of this change are the comments
on the Mosaic ideals in Jesus' Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, NIV). If
Moses was the archetypical Jew that condones nay ordains retribution then Jesus personifies a
completely different philosophy of kindness in the face of adversity. But it is not Jesus' goal
to do away with Mosaic law altogether, in fact he explicitly says that not a word of the Law
will be changed 'until everything is accomplished'. Supposing 'everything' means the
fulfilment of God's plan on Earth, Jesus here tries to lend some credence to his revolutionary
ideas on the law by invoking divinity. Instead of replacement, Jesus talks of fulfilment of the
Mosaic law through his ideas (Aslan, 2013). But Jesus most definitely takes Moses' words and
takes them a step further, revolutionising them and thereby replacing them with his own. In
the case of serious injury through victimisation, Jews up until this point were expected to take
eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise (Exodus 21:23-25, NIV). Jesus instead exclaims that these ideals are too
harsh, referring back to his starting words of meekness, mercy and peacefulness (Matthew
5:38-42, NIV). He argues to let victimisation happen, willingly by turning the other cheek, but
also by accepting use of force on your person, being stolen from and always being willing to
lend a helping hand in all things. The passivity that lies in these words would influence
millions over the years to come perhaps because it is such an exalted position to take. Is it not
an instinctual response to want revenge for a perceived transgression? How great then must
that person be who is able to put these instincts to rest in favour of forgiveness? These
questions lie at the base of Christian victimhood but also offer an explanation for why Christ
is seen as such an important figure.
9
1.3 Christ the ultimate victim
Kettle (2004) wrote about our recent cultural acceptance of victimhood as a part of group
status or group identity. He called this the 'exalted victim sensibility' and in trying to find a
reason for why this development took place his thoughts on victimisation reflect a Christian
undertone:
Accordingly victimhood involves fundamentally a sense of being mocked –
mocked by the “absent” agent behind blind chance. In the case when a person is the
victim of other human beings rather than tragic misfortune, this sense of being
mocked comes to the fore: the sense that “someone should have been there and
stopped it from happening” is met by the truth that “someone was there, and precisely
by their presence caused it to happen.” The outrageousness of this as a possibility is
quite overwhelming. The tragic sense remains that someone was not there; the agent
of victimisation enacted a contradiction of their responsibility to be there. This
reinforces the moral contradiction we feel in tragedy and incorporate into ourselves.
(p. 7)
Certainly for Kettle, Jesus is a proxy for all humanity in the face of victimisation when his
words on the cross spoken to God vocalise this moral contradiction (Matthew 27:46, NIV).
The man who spoke of equanimity and meekness is now in danger of being reduced to a
victim full of self-pity and hatred. Kettle continues and delves into Christian victimhood
echoing Jesus' words on the Mountain:
Neither dismissal nor the defeat constituted by despair or rage are authentic,
constructive responses to victimhood. They are destructive evasions. Dismissal
wreaks destruction in the victim whose claim is denied and who is thereby revictimized; self-pity, resentment and rage wreak destruction in the person possessed
by them, and rage may create new victims of its own. Meanwhile each evasion
involves self-deception, and is haunted by the other within ourselves. (p. 10)
Kettle continues to explore Christian victimhood. Of particular note is the two-fold
appreciation of Jesus as the ultimate victim. Here is a man who is able to do so much good in
the world while being completely undeserving of the victimisation brought upon him. He
accepts his victimhood believing that it will bring him ultimately closer to God. But his
passion does not rescue him from physical death. Through this physical death, he embodies a
spectral victimhood by suffering for all of humanity's sins. He becomes a divine figure to be
10
aspired to. But he also personifies a physical victimhood that could not be stopped by divine
agency. If his crucifixion was part of God's plan, if metaphorically then suffering is part of
God's plan for humanity, then this particular dichotomy can be used as a belief mechanism: if
the best person in the world is able to let himself suffer for something he did not even do,
what right do I have to complain about my suffering? Through enduring victimisation, Christ
shows the way to liberation from misgivings such as rage and denial and exemplifies the true
Christian victim. In his suffering he even goes above and beyond to plead with God for
forgiveness for his tormentors (Luke 23:34, NIV).
1.4 Christianity and forgiveness
It is striking that in a time of incredible political and religious turmoil such as the times of
early Christianity, this religion opted to be more tolerable than the Jewish religion of the
contemporary majority instead of becoming more retaliatory. Throughout the Sermon on the
Mount, Christians are not only ordered to be more passive in victimhood but Jesus make a
larger argument based on logic. He posits that if a Christian's faith is truly aimed at becoming
closer to God then he should act more like He does. That entails caring for not only the people
you love but for everyone including your enemies. God shining his light on any and all while
holding no one above another is indicative of an inclusionary approach to religion that is
somewhat contrary to the Jewish religious identity perceived to be more exclusionary in
nature. Certainly, forgiveness and admittance are important concepts in Christian victimhood.
This is illustrated in Biggar (2008):
If we really regard all human beings as fellow creatures and sinners, then we
will learn to grow in compassion for our enemies. We will learn to expand our
compassion for those who were responsible for their choices, and whose choices we
judge wrong, and whose choices we rightly judge wrong, but who are also—and like
us—considerably the subjects of tragic circumstance. (p. 576)
To Biggar as a Christian theologian, victimhood is the product of a perpetrator-victim
dichotomy with forgiveness as a two-pronged mechanism.. Forgiveness on the one hand can
be unilateral compassion towards the perpetrator by virtue of the quote above, or on the other
hand a conditional and reciprocal acceptance of the perpetrator's guilt.
This forgiveness is reinforced by Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians, especially in
Galatians 6, Doing Good to All. Where Jesus argued to truly forgive transgressions and
victimisation unilaterally, Paul here writes about shouldering the burden of victimisation in a
11
more bilateral direction. While everyone should carry their own load, those that endure will
surely reap rewards in due time. There is a cause and effect, a gratification principle, at play
in this letter. This is something that builds on Jesus' lofty ideals and attempts to uphold them
but also something that adds to his ideals by arguing for a more beneficial scenario. This
might have made Jesus' teachings more palpable for early Christians. Endure suffering and
uphold the law of Christ (which I would think refers back to what Jesus spoke of on the
Mount) and through reciprocity good things will come unto you and yours. This particular
notion of reciprocity is essential to the way Christian victimhood is perceived. Paul ordering
everyone to carry their own load becomes more than a metaphoric mission to revere Christ
and the sins that killed him. It directly informs a victim to be equanimous, to be silent in your
suffering for your suffering will be rewarded in due time.
Referring back to the principles of admittance and reciprocity, they are also apparent in the
Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25, NIV) and the Parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke 10:25-37, NIV). In the first, Jesus comes back to Earth to shepherd all people into the
afterlife. Those who have adhered to his principles are seen as the sheep, part of his flock.
Those that haven't are the goats, the outgroup. What this particular parable tries to signify
though is not how divided, but how akin to each other the people actually are. For the only
reason that the sheep are seen as the righteous ones and the ones granted admittance into
God's kingdom is that they have treated everyone with the same amount of respect and human
decency. They have done to the least of men what they would do to the best of men and are
therefore advocates of the principles of reciprocity, admittance and forgiveness Jesus holds
dear. The same principles feature in the second parable. Jesus instructs an inquiring law
expert on how to inherit eternal life. He tells him he must uphold the same principles as the
Good Samaritan, to care for others with mercy.
1.5 Christian victimhood and sin
What of sin? The cornerstone of Christian mythology is somewhat absent from the scripture
examples so far. The original sin that caused the fall of man, dooming us to a mortal life filled
with strife and hardships is the overarching device used in the Bible to explain why sin and
depravity exist in our world (Genesis 3, NIV). This presents another form of suffering, not
one of righteous suffering in equanimity, but one of sapping strength and of a heavy burden
on the soul. The sinner will continue to be sapped of his strength and will continue to feel the
Lord's heavy hand on him, until he confesses his sins to him and be cleansed (Psalm 32, NIV).
This cleansing can be seen as a metaphysical healing of the soul or as a physical cure of the
12
body. Calder (2004) argues that the first seems particularly true in his piece on the clichéd
Christian adages that disabled people, their family and carers are subjected to. At first glance
that line of inquiry might look like it does not tie in neatly to the role that sin plays in
Christian victimhood. But in truth, he gives perfect examples of how some Christians see
victimhood. Where some console the disabled by stating that God is on their side, it becomes
an even more irksome story to read when Christians offer as solace for disability the idea that
God has wanted this for them. The idea of disability as a test of faith is at the foundation of
these consolations. Controversially, these consolations have some basis in scripture. When
Jesus forgives and heals a paralyzed man one thing becomes clear: sin precipitates victimhood
(Mark 2, NIV). It is a given here that suffering from disability is proportionate to a sin the
person has committed. Jesus however absolves the paralyzed man of his sins and while a
crowd of learned men and other spectators look on, he proclaims that the forgiving of sins is a
power that is not just in God but also here in him on Earth, afterwards also showcasing his
curative powers by making the paralyzed man walk again. This particular passage is hard to
fully grasp because the words and translations aren't overly clear. On the one hand Jesus
instigates a change of thought (he, like his Father, possesses the power to forgive sins) but
rather than doing just that, he also makes the paralyzed man walk again, telling us that
forgiveness through spiritual healing and curing of the body might be two halves of the same
coin. This line of reasoning is employed by Guzik (2013) but I theorise that perhaps the
physical curing of the body was to emphasise Jesus' power and that the absolving of sin has to
precipitate physical healing. While sin's role in victimhood is clearly stated in this passage, it
seems as if Jesus somewhat denounces this idea of retributive justice in favour of starting
anew with his ministry of restoration and forgiveness.
So if this is how Jesus acts and thinks, the notion that people suffering from disabilities are
under some sort of test of faith and that the only way to completely be healed is to overcome
this test of faith, this poses a hermeunetical problem that Calder also recognises. Why this
particular emphasis on the idea that one has to be 'whole' as a prerequisite to be allowed into
God's community of forgiveness and reciprocity? As we'll see, the answer isn't completely
clear.
This test of faith idea also features in the passage in which Jesus heals a man born blind (John
9, NIV). Dating the Bible is a contentious endeavour but most agree that the Gospel of John
was written after the Gospel of Mark. The fact that John in this story writes of a completely
different Jesus then might reflect some societal change that happened between the time the
gospels were written. Jesus heals a man blinded from birth with no contractual obligation
13
between the two of them. He does not inquire how faithful the blind man is nor does he posit
that he wants something in return for his healing. It is indicative of John's Jesus that he is
unilaterally forgiving with a complete disregard for sin here. The paradoxical dialogue
illuminates a different Jesus, not the one who held that victimhood came forth from sin but
one that recognises that sin does not have to precipitate victimhood. Instead, Jesus argues that
the man's blindness has occured so that the works of God might be displayed in him (John
9:3, NIV). What follows are the proselytisation of the once blind man and the exclamation
from Jesus that his arrival heralds a time where the blind will be made to see (signifying the
emergence of Christianity) and those who see will become blind (the existing Pharisee
religious officials will lose power). In this text, victimisation happens for no apparent reason
but God's will. The agency of the victim here is negated and he is completely passive in his
victimhood. This not only connects to Kettle's moral contradiction at the heart of victimhood
(2004) but also somewhat reiterates the change from retributive victimhood (because of sin)
to passive victimhood (because of God's will) that featured in Mark. The solution to the
hermeneutical problem then has to be that the different interpretations of Jesus have different
philosophies.
1.6 The test of faith as an explanation for Christian victimhood
If I were to systematically search for notions of victimhood in Christian scripture though,
there are earlier Old Testament sources to be found. The test of faith, divinely sanctioned, has
a profound influence on Christian victimhood and while it is written about in the New
Testament (e.g. 1 Peter 1:6-7, NIV) no book better exemplifies this than the Book of Job.
Here God employs his servient accuser to test the faith of his people, in this case Job, a
morally righteous, God-fearing man. This being a part of the older Abrahamic tradition, the
accuser's actual Hebrew name is 'satan' meaning 'adversary', a terminology that would later be
capitalised and used in the New Testament for more devious purposes. But as God gloats to
his accuser that Job is a paragon of religious piety, his accuser makes the logical argument
that Job has nothing in his life but riches and love from all around him so why shouldn't he be
pious? The accuser argues that if these things would be taken away from Job he would not
remain pious and God ordains it so but warns the accuser to not touch Job. Subsequently Job
loses his riches, resources and offspring but does not renounce his faith in the face of this
inflicted victimhood. Later, God and the accuser meet again and much the same conversation
happens with the accuser arguing that if he had only been allowed to hurt Job physically he
would give up his faith. God condones this aggravation of Job's victimisation on the condition
14
that the accuser does not kill him and while Job's body is riddled with painful sores he keeps
his faith. His three friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar hear of his misfortune and pay him a
visit but can do nothing but weep and subsequently sit silently with him. It is from Job 3 that
Job speaks and enters into a dialogue with God on the one hand and a discussion with his
friends on the other. Job listens to Eliphaz who argues with stark contrasting logic that no
righteous man has ever been destroyed and that certainly Job won't be the first. Eliphaz firmly
holds that equanimity is the answer to Job's predicament. He further implores Job to stop
sighing and wailing and crying at nobody in particular, that will surely make him a simple
fool. Instead Job should talk to God, for He will help the righteous and act as a savior to those
he touches. Job rejects Eliphaz' arguments, instead trying to convince God to kill him citing
his sinless life as reason for his existential crisis. Bildad tries to convince Job to start anew, to
take advice from older men who might help him but warns him not to cast aside his belief for
it will not make him a better man. Zophar argues that Job's words don't necessarily fall on
deaf ears but that God is omnipotent and benevolent so he should trust His judgment. Job
recognises God's omnipotence and benevolence but argues that in the face of these divine
virtues he has been made a laughing-stock. His suffering is not taken seriously because it has
come about through an omnipotent and benevolent God. To speak of acquiescence in Job's
suffering is not recognising his suffering as valid. When Eliphaz talks about enduring, Job
disagrees opting to switch places to see if he'd still argue that way. Zophar continues
denouncing Job's cries, Job argues that he's righteous in crying out. Eliphaz rebukes him for
thinking that because he feels righteous God should listen to him. Afterwards, Job finally ends
his scalding charge and ends his words by again restating that he feels he did nothing wrong,
but if he did then let God judge him fairly. Then Elihu, a young man who has overheard the
conversation, speaks up and says that the three men have been judging Job too harshly. Their
arguments are not wrong but they do not refute Job's. Job however is not exalted above a
sinner purely because he isn't one, it does not matter to God. Elihu likens God's power to a
thunderstorm that happens to conjure up right then; impregnable and unintelligible. God's
voice echoes through the storm and says that Job can never understand his divine knowledge
and in the face of this manifestation Job agrees that he could never have glimpsed at God's
plan and repents. This results in God berating the three friends who seemed more intent on
exalting themselves over Job than on providing the true word of God and he points them
towards Job as a worthy servant now that he has acknowledged that God was and always will
be right. Ultimately, Job's life after his victimisation becomes even greater than it was before.
15
He is greatly rewarded with more riches and legacies than he had before; Job's reward for
enduring the test of faith and reciprocally holding on to his belief in God.
The Book of Job is a great look at Christian victimhood, in fact it is the most informative
outside of the Gospels. It touches on everything I've encountered. It covers sin, admittance,
reciprocity, forgiveness, piety and talks of justice and religious servitude while it also
signifies how important the test of faith narrative is in Christian victimhood. As Eliphaz says,
what righteous man has God ever let be destroyed? To endure is to believe and to believe is to
accept certain things in life, here namely victimhood.
16
Chapter II: Endurance, patience and piety; Islamic notions of victimhood
2.1 Islam, Quran and sunnah
Islam is a monotheistic religion predicated on an immutable belief in Allah, a unique divine
being (a principle known as Tawhid). The main Islamic holy text is the Quran, a collection of
revelations by Allah transcribed verbatim. The Quran is seen as the divine word spoken by
Allah through the angel Gabriel to the central Muslim prophet Muhammad. Muslims believe
that their only purpose on Earth is to revere this being as He is omnipotent, omniscient,
benevolent and holds absolute authority over the universe (The Holy Quran, translated by
Maulawi Sher'Ali, 2004, chapter 51 Al-Dhariyat (The Winnowing Winds), verse 57)1. Allah
is the creator deity and after his act of creating the world, he continues to be present in all its
facets. Islam being a relatively young religion, a key part of Islamic tradition is that it
recognises previous encounters between prophets and divine beings as genuine and in fact as
a part of its own tradition. This resulted in a Quran that is partly comprised of stories from the
Hebrew Old Testament and the Christian New Testament. This adoption of older narratives
also signifies that Allah and the Hebrew and Christian God share similarities. The Hebrew
and Christian prophets are mentioned quite often in the Quran with some alterations made to
their original stories. Some are mentioned fleetingly, others are deemed so important that their
story is retold completely (as in the story of Joseph in Surat Yusuf, Chapter 12). The Islamic
interpretations of these older stories are the definitive versions according to Muslims. They
believe that previous versions of the stories had not been true to the word of Allah but rather
reiterations, words of men, making their authenticity suspect.
Like Judaism, Islam contends that Christian reverence for the Holy Trinity of God, Jesus and
the Holy Spirit is antithetical to the monotheistic beliefs they hold dear. Even though
Muhammad has a central place in Islam somewhat comparable to Jesus in Christianity, he is
never ascribed divine power or a seat next to God after death. He is seen as merely a
messenger, a prophet like so many before whose message was more important than his
person. That message is the driving force behind Islam and is explained in the Quran. By
following the Quran, Muslims adhere to the Islamic way of life (sunnah) also explained by a
set of guidelines, traditions and oral reports on Muhammad's exemplary way of life (known as
hadiths). These hadiths can be seen as interpretations of Muhammad's personal convictions
1
For the entire chapter, references to the Quran will be made pertaining to this translation, available online at
https://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-English.pdf
17
and acts by his contemporaries. These reports about his person combine with the divine
revelations in the Quran to form a system of belief and behaviour. There is also an exegetic
part of the Islamic faith in the form of tafsir, the interpretations of important religious texts.
Understandably, the sunnah is also informed by both hadiths and tafsir and the latter two
show some overlap. The multitude of Islamic religious texts provides plenty of references to
victimisation and victimhood.
2.2 Endurance and patience
The concepts of patience and endurance feature heavily in the Quran. The protagonists of the
verses are paragons of these virtues and Muslims are expected to walk in their footsteps and
emulate these same virtues. In chapter (sura) 22 Al-Ĥaj (The Pilgrimage), verse 36, Muslims
are told to exhibit great reverence at the mention of Allah, to patiently endure whatever
befalls them, to observe Prayer and to spend out of what He has provided for them.
Particularly the instruction to patiently endure is interesting from a victimhood standpoint; it
instructs Muslims to abhor complaint and accept victimisation as a part of life. But Islamic
victimhood is not just acceptance, it is also retribution. Further in the same chapter, verse 40
explains that permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they
have been wronged and Allah has the power to help them. This verse seems to exhibit a
certain plasticity. What does 'war' here truly mean? Is fighting back allowed for any man who
has been wronged or feels he has been? The Quran is concise and does not provide direct
answers. Further in the same chapter, forgiveness and an honorable provision are promised to
those that do good deeds and believe (51) and the latter is promised also to those who leave
their houses for the cause of Allah and are then slain or die (59). Verse 61 denotes a very
important facet of Muslim victimhood. Although retaliation has been uttered as a permissible
venue before, here Muslims are ensured that if they retaliate with the same act with which
they were violated and are then transgressed against, they will be aided by Allah because he is
the eraser of sins and is merciful.
The virtue of patience is further elaborated upon in sura 2 Al-Baqarah (The Cow). In verses
154-158 Muslims are instructed to seek help in times of need with patience and Prayer
because Allah is surely with the steadfast. He will try Muslims through fear and hunger, loss
of wealth and lives and fruits but they should give glad tidings to he who is patient. Because it
is the patient who, when disaster strikes, will say that they indeed belong to Allah and to Him
they will return. The patient are further glorified as the ones receiving the blessings and mercy
of Allah and the ones that are rightly guided. This reverence for the patient is also exemplified
18
in the Quranic verses about Abraham and his son as a divine sacrifice for Allah. This trial of
God is portrayed in the Biblical Book of Genesis as the Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-19,
NIV) but there is some debate over who Abraham is willing to sacrifice in the Quran due to
the Quran not naming the boy. What is important to note here is that Abraham informs his son
of Allah's command. Rather than trying to flee or complaining about his fate, the son responds
that Abraham should do as he is commanded, continuing that he will find his son, if Allah
wills it, to be one of the patient (Surat 37 Aş-Şāffāt (Those who set the Ranks) verse 103).
2.3 The Prophets Contrasted
The mentions of the prophets of other Abrahamic religions in the Quran offer the possibility
to contrast the older stories to the ones that the Quran tells of. The differences will illuminate
what makes the Islamic faith distinct from the other faiths that tell these stories. One of the
biggest differences between the verses concerning the Abrahamic prophets in the Quran and
the ones in the Jewish Tanakh and Christian Bible is that the Quran adopts only fragments of
the stories. Often times only a couple of lines are devoted to a prophet, and they are
sometimes mentioned solely to lend credence to the holy revelations of the Quran itself. They
are mentioned to signify that what is written in the Quran is a continuation of what came
before, to provide a connection to established religious authority. The stories of the previous
prophets in the Quran seem by and large not to be included as complete retellings but as
touchstones. This is for instance apparent in the mentions of Job (Ayoub) in the Quran. The
Ayoub that is written about in the Quran is similar to the Biblical Job from the previous
chapter but also possesses some key differences. In chapters 4 An-Nisa (The Women) and 6
Al-Anam (The Cattle), Ayoub is mentioned as a receiver of revelations and one that was
guided by the divine among a bevy of other important figures like Jacob, Jonah and Jesus
(4:164 & 6:85). Both of these mentions are extremely brief compared to the Biblical Book of
Job. In chapters 21 Al-Anbiya' (The Prophets) and 38 Sad (The Letter 'Saad') he is again
mentioned recalling the end of the biblical tale where Allah grants him mercy when Ayoub
finally cries out to Him (21:84-85 & 38:42-45). An inkling of why the Islamic Ayoub is
different from the Biblical Job is seen here. Where the latter renounced his faith momentarily
in his hour of need only to be repentant and be forgiven by God, the former only cries to
Allah that affliction has tainted him and that Allah is the Most Merciful (Al-Rahim) of all
who show mercy. There are no further mentions of Ayoub in the Quran but the story of this
prophet was summarised in important Muslim historical literature. One such literary source is
Al-Imam ibn Kathir's Stories of the Prophets written in the fourteenth century. In that book, a
19
sort of Muslim encyclopedia on the Prophets, Job's story is changed to portray a man not in
discussion with God, but a man who is patient and quiet in his suffering. Ayoub, like Job,
endures his victimisation but where the latter endures it up to a certain point, Ayoub endures
throughout the story. Where God allows the Accuser to finally assault Job physically but
instructs him not to kill him, Allah instructs Iblis (the Accuser's Islamic counterpart) to not
touch Ayoub's soul, intellect and heart because that is where the knowledge of Allah and his
religion lies. When his wife is seduced by Iblis to urge Ayoub to complain to Allah, he retorts
that he had enjoyed eight years of prosperity and only seven of hardships. He is ashamed to
call upon his Lord because he realises that he has not suffered as much as he had enjoyed
before and promises to chastise his wife with a hundred strokes if his health ever recovers
before casting her out. It is this pledge that is referred to in chapter 38 Sad (The Letter 'Saad'),
verse 45, when Allah finally shows mercy to Ayoub and he has to uphold this unfortunate
promise. Having been relieved of his hardships and reunited with his wife, Ayoub has no
desire to beat his wife but also does not want to break his promise to Allah. Instead of having
to beat his wife with a rod, Allah shows him mercy again and instructs him to obtain a bundle
of thin grass to beat her with, therefore not truly hurting her. The story of Ayoub exemplifies
the way in which Islam reinterprets important stories. Allah is omniscient and therefore His
ways are not to be questioned. This might explain why the entire portion of the Biblical story
in which Job questions why he is being victimised by God and discusses its implications with
his friends is omitted from the Quran and the traditional Islamic literature. Ayoub does not
ask God to stop tormenting him but merely praises him by calling him by one of his best
known monikers. Instead of complaint, Ayoub exhibits endurance and patience in his
victimisation. From an exegetic view, seeing as the moral of the story of Job is that man
should endure, be patient and should not try to understand the intentions of God, the story of
Ayoub emphasises all these traits.
There is but one story of a prophet in the Quran that is fully retold and has its own complete
chapter devoted to it. The surat Yusuf (Chapter 12) retells the story of Joseph, a son sold into
slavery due to his jealous brothers who eventually rises up to a very important position in
Ancient Egypt. Victimisation in the original tale played a key role in multiple parts of
Joseph's story. In the Book of Genesis Joseph is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers
(37:28, NIV) after which his father Jacob is unconsolable in his lamentations (37:33-35,
NIV). Joseph, righteous as he is, is tempted by Potiphar's wife to commit adultery with her
but refuses her advances. Nevertheless she grabs him by his cloak when he runs away from
her a final time and with the cloak she proves to Potiphar that Joseph intended to take her and
20
that as soon as she screamed for help he ran, leaving his cloak behind. Potiphar angrily
imprisons Joseph for this (39-6:20, NIV). In his victimised state, Joseph finally laments to his
fellow inmates that he was unjustly treated twice (40:15, NIV). In the Quran, the chapter of
Yusuf differs at key points while retaining the victimisation elements. Yusuf's brothers do not
directly sell him into slavery but rather leave him at the bottom of a well, to be kidnapped by
a caravan that would sell him in some distant land, a plan that Ibn Kathir called 'the cleverest
of ideas'. When the brothers confront their father and relay the tale of how Yusuf was killed,
showing Yaqub the bloodied robe he had given Yusuf as he had done in the Bible, he does not
lose himself in lamentations (Chapter 12:17-19). Instead, Yaqub seems to immediately
acknowledge that his sons have done a grave misdeed and that the only thing for him to do is
resign himself to the situation by being patient. Ibn Kathir adds that Yaqub here trusted Allah
to help him against what they had plotted against him and his son and that he was in tears
when he announced his intentions. Still, Yaqub seems more resigned and patient and certainly
more in control of himself than Jacob. He again exhibits the quintessential virtues that a
Muslim victim should possess; patience, endurance and quiescence. Another key difference
that shows the Muslim idea of victimhood clearly is the way in which the affair with Aziz's
(Potiphar) wife is handled in the Quran. The affair is much longer and better explained to
show the wickedness on the part of Aziz's wife and the righteousness of Yusuf. The story
leaves undecided whether or not both the wife and Yusuf are to blame for the sexual situation
they find themselves in but it does denote that Yusuf could not have shown such
determination in turning her down if he had not seen a Sign of his Lord at that very moment
(12:25), a testament to his virtuous piety. Instead of merely being wrongfully imprisoned
following Aziz's wife's plot, the story elaborates that when she presents the cloak to her
husband, it is not the complete cloak but rather a ripped portion of it. An onlooker deduces
that if Yusuf's cloak is torn from the front, he is guilty and if it is ripped from the back, the
wife is guilty. As it turns out, the cloth is ripped from the back of Yusuf's cloak and the
rumour that Aziz's wife is in love with Yusuf spreads like wildfire throughout the town
(12:26-30). After tricking the other women into falling for Yusuf's beauty as well, Yusuf
exclaims to Allah that he does not want to incline to the women in the way that they want him
to. He even prefers prison to that which the women invite him and says that if the Lord does
not remove the desires of the women ('turn away their guile from me') he would surely fall
victim to their intentions. The wife devises a way of saving her dignity and safeguarding her
husband's honor in the process: Yusuf should be put in prison (12:31-36). Ibn Kathir writes
that Aziz reluctantly agrees to this, knowing full well that Yusuf is a man of honor and
21
dignity, unworthy of such a fate, but also realizing that by separating his wife from Yusuf in
this way, he saves both their dignities. This addition to the story shows that Yusuf is merely a
slave to divine will and a profoundly righteous man. Instead of being imprisoned
immediately, Yusuf himself asks for imprisonment realising that it would be for the best.
The differences between Joseph and Yusuf again show how a Muslim victim should act.
Yusuf, like his father, remains steadfast in his convictions when confronted with
victimisation. They do not renounce their faith in times of need but rather emphasize that
patient piety is the answer to their predicaments even going so far as Yusuf pleading with
Allah to put him into prison, far away from possible disgraces.
2.4 Women and Islam
There is something to be said about the role that women fulfill in Muslim society. I will not
contend that their role is ubiquitously that of a victim, but certainly there are Islamic texts that
seem to dictate a submissive role for them, a role that leaves them more susceptible to
victimisation. Broadly taken, the religious texts that I've studied up until now, be they
Christian or Muslim, are male-oriented. The divine figures have male pronouns, the prophets
are all male and as in The Bible, women in Islamic texts seem to serve to seduce and betray.
Indicative of this is the role that Zulaikha plays in the story of Yusuf just mentioned. The
Quran does not mention Aziz's wife by name, a curious omission given her central role in
Yusuf's story and the deliberateness of reiterating his story completely. It is only when you
again turn to Ibn Kathir's collection of prophet stories that she is named. Then again, the Bible
does not name Potiphar's wife either and it is probable that the reason for both omissions is
the same. Mernissi (2001) held that due to her cunning and deceitful underhandedness,
Zulaikha's name was struck from the record. Her role as victimiser excluded her from being
mentioned by name. But why make her role in Yusuf's story larger than in the Bible to show
her being more deceitful? Why then are male victimizers named in these texts? What is it that
makes women so controversial that they should not be mentioned? Mernissi continued by
discussing why Zulaikha is depicted the way she is and why the legend of Yusuf is so
obsessively reproduced by Muslim artists:
-its topic is not so much adultery as its probability. Men can make marriage
laws and declare them sacred, but there is always a possibility that women will not
feel bound by them. And it is this small chance that women might not obey and
thereby destabilize the male order that is so striking a component of Muslim culture in
both historical reality and fantasy. (p. 20)
22
She goes on to mention that there is an extremist sect, the Ajarida, that refuses to
acknowledge the entire sura as part of the Quran precisely because of these reasons. What's
even more interesting is the idea that some hadiths covering women's political participation,
gender roles and female purification were deliberately written to serve the contemporary
male-oriented agendas of Islamic societies (Ammar, 2007).
But this was not always so. There was one famous hadith that unquestionably guaranteed a
very important freedom for all women; women were allowed to pray in mosques. This hadith
comes from Imam Bukhari's Kitab al-Jum'a (Book of Friday), who wrote the words of the
Prophet Muhammad two centuries after his death. He wrote: 'do not forbid the
mosques of Allah to the women of Allah.' Another hadith from Imam Nisa'i's Al-Sunan
(Traditions), written three centuries post-Muhammad, regulates the arrangements made for
men and women in the mosque, not for a second elevating one group above the other. He
literally states 'when a woman asks authorization from one of you to go to the mosque,
let him grant it to her.' The idea of having to ask for authorization seems to speak to a societal
change towards women but still, this was not an exclusionary text. These two hadiths,
incontrovertible as they were, were reinterpreted later, granting men a preferred status inside
the mosque. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, a very prolific author of tafsir and hadiths, wrote a further
three centuries later about the laws for women in Islam and while he upheld the previous
hadiths, he caused confusion by adding to them. He wrote that the prayers of men seated
behind women in the mosque were worthless. He continued and asked whether or not it was
permitted for women to go to the mosque and answered himself saying that if a woman fears
disturbing men's minds, it is better for her to pray in her home. He reiterated Imam Bukhari's
hadith at this point but closed with saying that 'the Friday Service is not a duty for women'
and saw the act of going out as a woman as an act full of danger and distraction (Mernissi,
1993) thereby acting as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mernissi (1993) describes this startling
development of women's rights as follows:
Women, who had the privilege of access to the mosque as sahabiyyat,
Companions of the Prophet, very quickly became the polluting, evil beings they had been
in the jahiliyya, the pre-Islamic era. From the ashes of that era was reborn a misogyny
whose roots reached deep down into archaic fears of femaleness and ignored the Prophet's
endeavours to exorcize them by insisting on the necessity for the Muslim man to share
everything with his wife. (p. 82-83)
23
This conflict of beliefs, between what Muhammad purportedly said and what the ruling class of
judiciaries said, was settled in favour of the latter it seems. Under a quintessential virtue that
Muslims hold dear, the equality between humans, women are the equals of men. But they are
only offered indirect political power by being represented by male representatives (wali,
wakil) in political systems across most Islamic countries and are granted a minority status
(Mernissi, 2001). That representation has directly influenced Muslim women to enjoy their
rights less. Recent research found that in a large number of court cases involving Palestinian
Muslim females, the women were not aware of their religious and civil rights to for instance
stand up for themselves in court, demand alimony payments and divorce their husbands
without losing their children (Rabho, 2013). Rabho concluded that due to the lack of
knowledge about legal rights, many victimised women remained silent about their
victimisation at the hands of their husband or their extended families. Traditional Muslim
society seems to indicate that a women should suffer in silence and that there 'is no accepted
life concept' for women absent a male provider (Mlodoch, 2012).
Chapter 4 Al-Nisa (The Women) verse 4, states that Muslim men may marry as many women
as is agreeable to them thus promoting polygamy. The caveat to do so only for the purpose of
dealing fairly with orphans in the aftermath of war is not nearly as well known. Rabho (2013)
mentions that polygamy is one of the social factors influencing suffering women to stay silent.
Their fear for being victimised is overtaken by their fear to lose face in the eyes of their
families and themselves. In this respect, it seems that traditional Islamic society promulgates
the idea that it is better to be wed to a man who has other wives than to not be married at all,
diluting the inherent and relative personal worth of women compared to men.
There is another victimising factor that features in Rabho (2013) and influences female
victims' silence. It was already mentioned earlier in the story of Ayoub and the way in which
he treated his wife. The admonishing of Ayoub's wife with the rod and eventually the bundle
of grass are indicative of a controversial stance on wife battery in Islamic society. In chapter 4
Al-Nisa (The Women), verse 35, men, when confronted with suspected disobedient women,
are to let them sleep alone and are instructed to treat them with reproach and chastisement.
The latter word is understandably the most controversial here. Ammar (2007) recognized
several different ways of interpreting this verse in Islamic society, arguing that most Islamic
societies do not interpret the text literally. That however does not negate that some do, and
that some use the Quran and supporting hadiths to commit these acts of victimisation.
24
2.5 Retaliation, blood money and forgiveness
Finally, the concepts of repentance for sins through physical retaliation, the payment of blood
money (diyah) or forgiveness feature in the Quran and in important hadiths. While retribution
is not discouraged, exemplified in the reiteration of the Mosaic eye-for-an-eye ideals in
chapter 5 Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread), verse 46, the same verse continues by stating that
those who waive retaliation in favour of the acceptance of blood money walk a morally
upright path. A remission of a crime can be enacted by paying an agreed upon sum to the
victim or their extended family. There is another transliteration of this particular verse that
states that if the victim gives up his right to a payment of blood money and the perpetrator
gives the sum to charity, that act is expiatory as well. Etymologically, the word for blood
money (diyah/diyya/diya/dchiya) seems to be connected to the Arabic word for sacrifice
(adha), as in the Arabic for the Sacrificial Feast of Abraham, Eid al-Adha (Van Dijk, 2007).
This concept of blood money also features in chapter 4 An-Nisa (The Women), verse 93,
concerning the appropriate punishment for the killing of a fellow Muslim. Where doing so
intentionally condemns the perpetrator to Hell (verse 94), the accidental death of a fellow
believer warrants the freeing of a believing slave and a payment of blood money presented to
the deceased's family (unless the family gives up that right to charity). Some important
hadiths concerning blood money contend that accidental victimisation leading to a full
recovery does not warrant blood money whereas it leading to a handicap does (Malik's
Muwatta, hadith 43.5). Important to note is that the original wound has to be completely
healed before the decision to retaliate or accept blood money is made. A wounded man who
would rather retaliate against his victimiser only for him to discover afterwards that his own
wound won't heal resulting in his disability, would have been better of choosing blood money
(Bulagh al-Muram, book 9 Crimes (Retaliation), hadith 1208). Furthermore Muhammad had
said that blood money was part of the estate of the victim. If he or she perishes, the blood
money is divided up between the heirs of the victim. On a related note, if a woman is killed
then her blood money is to be shared among her heirs, and they may kill her killer (Sunan anNasa'i, book 45 Oaths, Retaliation and Blood Money, hadith 4805). This complicates the
distinct view on repentance. The victim or the heirs have to choose to either take revenge,
take the blood money or to forgive (Van Dijk & Sarkeshikian, 2013) but in this hadith those
categories are not mutually exclusive anymore. I believe that is not coincidence that it is the
woman's role in this particular hadith that forces a break from the rule of retaliatory law. The
egregious manner in which a woman's killer is made to account for their deeds seems
indicative of different gender norms. This is also apparent in the hadith 48 in the Book of
25
Blood Money (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 87) where a fight between two women is brought
before Muhammad. One woman hit the other with a stone which resulted in the death of the
woman and her unborn child. Muhammad judged that the blood money for the unborn child
was a slave and for the slain woman a sum to be paid by the near relatives of the killer. These
last two hadith show a completely contradictory approach to retaliation when a woman is
involved.
In Islamic tradition the concept of forgiveness does not feature nearly as heavily as in
Christian tradition. There are scarce mentions of it in the Quran and reading the hadiths, it
seems that the tradition is much more revenge-driven with the concept of blood money
coming in a close second as a preferred way of dealing with punishment. Some hadiths do
mention forgiveness though, but they fail to describe how forgiveness becomes a virtue of the
person that gives it and underscore the way in which it places the burden of sin on the
victimiser (Sunan an-Nasa'i, book Oaths, Retalation and Blood money, hadith 18-19).
So how can we typify the Muslim victim? He can endure whatever victimisation besets him
and should do so with a patient righteousness. He should be steadfast in his piety, unwavering
in his loyalty to Allah no matter what happens. Whatever Allah commands of him, he will
endeavour to achieve that divine will. He takes part of the homogenous community of his
fellow Muslims that at once recognizes, denounces and aggravates gender differences. The
Muslim victim should not just accept victimisation but also retaliate accordingly, choosing for
his pound of flesh or gold where forgiveness is also a possibility.
26
Chapter III: Reciprocity, acceptance and sacrifice: Hinduism's views on victimhood
3.1 Hinduism and eclecticism
To write about Hinduism in the same vein as I've done before about Christianity and Islam, I
would need to feign a monolithic structure that simply isn't present in this eclectic religion. It
is true that of the three here described, Hinduism is often thought to be the only polytheistic
religion among them. It is most definitely the oldest of the three religions here described and
there is more scripture to draw references from. Its status as the world's largest polytheistic
religion however is under contention due to certain elements of the religion being decidedly
monotheistic ánd pantheistic. This is particularly telling when thinking of Brahman, the
cosmogenic concept sometimes referred to as the Great Cosmic Spirit but simultaneously also
referred to as that which is everywhere, all the time. In describing Hinduism, it is important to
keep this diffuseness in mind.
Throughout Hindu texts it becomes clear that our Western-minded craving for a neat label is
not of great concern to Hindus as a whole. Many texts describe the same sentiment, moral or
even the exact same story and where a Western-minded individual would recommend cutting
down on repetitive content, the Hindu principle seems to be that all stories come from and
return to a divine origin, making repetition a form of worship. But it is not only the
worshipping of more than one divine figure that complicates describing Hinduism. It for
instance lacks a central, holy text similar in structure and content to the Bible or the Quran.
The most ancient Hindu texts, believed to be received through divine means, detail chiefly
how to accomplish a correct sacrifice to a specific deity with a final chapter devoted to
warding off evil through incantations. These texts are called the Vedas and, while the oldest,
they don't seem to be the most useful for everyday Hindu life. It is the later texts like the
philosophically inclined Upanishads, the Manu Smriti (Laws of Manu) or the various
exegetical stories about important Hindu figures that represent the brunt of Hindu knowledge
or rather it is these texts that portray the Hindu way of life.
3.2 Hinduism and the concept of the self
In order to explain how Hindus view their victims, it is important to know how they view
themselves. Whereas the concepts of suffering, self-worth and reward are inextricably linked
to a singular divine figure in the other religions described in the previous pages, Hinduism
seems to focus much more on the personal growth of individuals. This is immediately
27
apparent in the concept of transmigration; reincarnation into another life cycle based on
growth accrued in this and previous life cycles (samsāra). There is a degree of pain that
accompanies the transmigrative process, but those individuals who have attained the highest
knowledge will eventually be able to quit this continuous cycle, to live without form and
without suffering beyond this world, achieving moksha (Svetasvatara Upanishad, Muller
(Trans.), 1879). Of note here is that it is not stated that those who suffer the most, will be the
ones who will be shown salvation. It is the ones who have experienced the most, have seen
and done the most and chiefly the ones who have learned all there is to learn who will be
rewarded. Hinduism then can be typified as a religious journey for knowledge, culminating in
satisfaction and serenity.
So how does a Hindu gather knowledge for himself? The caste system still prevalent on the
Indian subcontinent holds that there are certain differences between castes of people, based on
their religious involvement for example. The priestly caste called Brahmin/Brahmana accrue
knowledge by observing the ten-fold law presented in the Laws of Manu, perhaps the most
important document describing Hindu law and social customs (Sri Rama Ramanuja Achari,
2009). Twice-born men (those who are physically born and afterwards renounce the material
world to be born again spiritually) should uphold the following ten-fold law religiously:
Contentment,
forgiveness,
self-control,
abstention
from
unrighteously
appropriating anything, (obedience to the rules of) purification, coercion of the organs,
wisdom, knowledge (of the supreme Soul), truthfulness, and abstention from anger,
(form) the tenfold law (The Laws of Manu, Muller & Buhler (Trans.), 1886, p. 215).
There is a point in the journey for knowledge where any Hindu will, through adhering to these
ten points, come to understand that the cosmogenic concept of Brahman is apparent in all
things, big and small. Everywhere is anywhere, everything is anything and this knowledge
will ensure that you as a great Hindu, as a great human, won't be reborn after death allowing
you eternal peace. The Hindu self, so based on preventing harm to others and self-control, is a
concept under constant revision. Its role in the Hindu mindset is beautifully explained in the
Katha Upanishad, a mythological story of how Nachiketas, a young student eager to give
himself away as a sacrifice to the personification of Death, manages to confront and entice
Death to a philosophical debate about the soul, the self and inner knowledge. It is Death
(Yama) who expands the young boy's mind:
Know that the Self is the lord of the chariot, the body verily is the chariot;
know that the soul is the charioteer, and emotion the reins. They say that the bodily
28
powers are the horses, and that the external world is their field. When the Self, the
bodily powers and emotion are joined together, this is the right enjoyer; thus say the
wise. But for the unwise, with emotion ever unrestrained, his bodily powers run away
with him, like the unruly horses of the charioteer. For him who is wise, with emotion
ever restrained, his bodily powers do not run away with him, like the well-ruled horses
of the charioteer. But he who is unwise, restrains not emotion, and is ever impure,
gains not that resting-place, but returns to the world of birth and death. He who is
wise, restrains emotion, and is ever pure, gains that resting-place from which he is not
born again (Katha Upanishad, Johnston (Trans.), 1899, p. 15).
3.3 Hope to the hopeless
Another way to achieve transcendence and peace in Hinduism, to reach a place free from pain
and pleasure, is meditation. A widespread concept that often accompanies meditation in
Hinduism is yoga, of which Pranayama yoga is a main variant (Gherwal, 1930). The word
'pranayama' is composed of the words for vital breath (Prana) and extending (ayama),
denoting its purpose as a collection of breathing exercises. In Hinduism, Prana is ascribed a
divine origin making its management an important part of life. The Yogis believe that,
through Pranayama yoga, they can control their enemies and free themselves from disease. It
is the means by which they can learn to levitate, walk on water and live buried alive for years.
It is their way of achieving moksha and a mastery of all forces in the world. Pranayama yoga
doubles also as the best method for the suffering to overcome their hardships (disease, fear,
nervousness, despair and pain). Yogis claim that yoga and meditation can be used to deliver
power to the poor, faith to the faithless and hope to the hopeless, as it is the only way to
control your thoughts (thoughts coming from desire, desire being a product of Prana).
Ultimately, a great Yogi will be able to attain a level of cosmic stability. By controlling the
Prana and the mind, one can make lower mental activity cease and make the mind focus
solely on the higher functions, releasing one's self from harm, heat, cold, time, matter, space,
decay and death (Gherwal, 1930).
3.4 Victimisation and punishment in the Laws of Manu
An important Hindu legal text such as the Laws of Manu provides us with some references to
victimisation and the way in which it is looked upon and dealt with. While it's origin is
thought to be around 5th century BCE, its relevancy on some important matters has not faded
with time (Sri Rama Ramanuja Achari, 2009). The correct practices of punishment for
29
instance are clearly stated. Punishment is meant to be used as a governing tool, a deterrent and
as a purifier. Where it is stated that punishment alone governs, protects and watches over all
created beings, it will be solely the wise (law 376) who, with respect to right living (dharma),
prosperity (artha) and enjoyment (kåma), will determine what just punishment will be (law
380). 'The wise' here refers to the judicial administrators of the courts, who are ordered to
properly inflict punishment after sufficient consideration (law 377), expecting that through the
fear of punishment men will stay in line (law 379). Sufficient consideration being a focal
point of the punishment process, it is warranted by judges to fully ascertain motive, time and
place of the crime, the capacity of the criminal to suffer and nature of the crime before
sentencing (law 383). The ascending order of punishments starts at gentle admonition,
followed by harsh reproof, followed by a fine, culminating in corporal punishment (law 384).
If this chain of events proves to be unsuccessful in reforming the offender, it is advised to
inflict all four methods at once (law 385). Concludingly, the Laws of Manu imply that
through the punishment process, offenders will be cleansed of their wrongdoings, likening
them to those who have performed good deeds, allowing them to go to heaven (law 387). The
Laws of Manu concerning punishment seem relatively humane for their time. The
punishments ramp up when the acts are done by those of a low caste to a victim of a higher
caste however. In that case, amputation and banishment seem the go-to punishments. The
attention to all the details of the punitive process seems typical of Hinduism. If a judicial
official punishes someone unjustly, be it because of a faulty assessment of the offender or a
personality defect in the official, he will suffer the consequences of it in this and certainly the
next life. The bifurcated reaction to transgressions of this nature (one in the immediate future,
another in the next life cycle) is what makes the Laws of Manu so clearly written on acts that
involve another person's well-being.
You would expect that references to victims (obviously involving the well-being of others)
would be likewise clearly written. Concerning forgiveness, it is stated that those who pardon
their abusers who are themselves in pain, shall be exalted in heaven (law 484). Concerning
compensation, assailants that cause injury or (bloody) wounds in others shall pay a
compensating fee or a fee covering the costs of the cure to the victim or both as a sum fine to
the government (law 486). For the damaging of another man's goods, both a satisfactory sum
to the victim and a fine to the government is to be paid (law 492). Concerning minor offences
and the correct way of performing an expiating sacrifice or penance, one should recite the
Vedic texts when a sin is committed unintentionally, and special penances when done so on
30
purpose (law 539). A proper sacrifice to the right deity will expiate minor offences, as long as
the sacrificial fees are of the proper relative size for your social stature (laws 541-542).
All greater offences are categorised in three categories, descending in severity. An example of
the primary and worst offences would be killing a priest, the slaying of a woman being a
prime example of a secondary offence. The category of tertiary offences is for instance
typified by acts of cheating and homosexuality. There is an obvious discrepancy of worth
placed on the victim between the different magnitudes of offences. Punishment standards are
based on quantifying the victim's victimhood, placing a lesser worth on some victims
compared to others.
Where there is a vast array of expiatory acts in the Laws of Manu, providing the offender with
many ways to become clean and whole again, there is not much focus on victims in this legal
text. A small portion of the text on karma denotes that action achieves reaction, the result of a
negative or positive mental act will present itself in the mind. For a verbal act it will present
itself in one's speech and for a physical act it will present itself in one's body (law 577).
Victimisation in Hindu society then might be easily explained away as just deserts or the
ramifications of karma. But there is more to victimisation than just getting what you deserve.
There are those who suffer having done nothing to incur the suffering, the noble sufferer
archetype that is so prevalent in Christian narratives for instance. Hindu mythology by and
large does not seem to strongly feature that same archetype.
3.5 Archetypical suffering and righteousness
Hinduism seems to be overtly focused on active rather than passive participation in all things
in life. Hindus are expected to devote their lives to living the correct way, making the correct
sacrifices and penances when they've transgressed laws and boundaries and enjoying life to its
fullest within the confines of the law. While there is a moment of reckoning in the afterlife,
you would be wise to not wait until that moment for you to better yourself. If you find
yourself in a situation of victimisation there are legal guidelines that dictate how you will be
compensated but there is no special attention given to you specifically because you are a
victim. Your victim status does not wholly reflect upon you as a person, even though you
would be looked upon as a benevolent and righteous person if you would not let your
victimisation taunt you into cursing your victimiser or others instead opting for forgiveness. It
seems that Hindus see victimisation as an opportunity for personal and spiritual growth as
much as they see it as an unwanted situation to be in. This becomes clearer when you
encounter references to the Hindu underworld, as in the story of The Garuda Paruna, a
31
philosophical debate between the important deity Vishnu and the King of Birds (The Garuda
Purana, Wood & Subrahmanyam (Trans.), 1911). In it, Vishnu explains that souls who utter
the "Om", a divine reference to Brahman, at the moment they leave their bodies will be
allowed into the Kingdom of Yama, who is not just seen as the embodiment of Death but also
as the ruler of the Underworld among other titles. Here, the righteous souls will be allowed to
enter the Kingdom through three of the four ornately decorated entrances. Some examples of
righteous souls given are those souls who sheltered ascetics from bad weather, those who die
of the vow of starvation and those who turned away from injury to others and calumny. Those
souls who have suffered (unjust) victimisation are unequivocally granted a righteous status.
Once brought before Yama, also the King of Justice and Righteousness, He welcomes the
souls in a friendly manner as if to welcome good friends. Honouring their deeds He will offer
them the throne and wash their feet in addition to performing various other honorary rites. At
that moment He separates the knowing souls, the souls who have attained the highest
knowledge and are to be taken of the wheel of reincarnation, from the righteous souls that will
be allowed a period in heaven before reincarnation.
The other souls, the ones who have neglected to live a righteous life and have caused
victimisation and pain, enter through the southern entrance into the Assembly of
Righteousness and will be judged by Yama according to the sins they have not done penance
for. The Garuda Purana lists a bevy of sins and their corresponding punishments to be enacted
in the part of the Underworld a Western-minded individual would call Hell. But there is an
important difference that separates the Western Hell from the Hindu Hell. Yama's punishment
is not eternal. It is meant to educate the soul that receives it, mercifully allowing it to pass
over into another life cycle eventually. There will be a residual effect on the soul, on the
conscience of the soul, that will remember what it was like to receive punishment for a sinful
act. According to Hindu beliefs, this explains the inherent fear that accompanies the initial
thought of a sinful act (The Garuda Purana, Wood & Subrahmanyam (Trans.), 1911).
Again it is noteworthy that the Hindu self is constantly changing, through positive and
negative action. You, or rather your soul, will not be branded a sinner for all eternity in the
same way you will not be branded a victim forever.
3.6 Obedience, sati and suicide
It has become clear so far that Hinduism employs many of the same concepts that featured in
Christianity and Islam. Forgiveness, compassion, retribution, punishment and suffering are all
key elements of Hinduism. One other important element that I will come back to in the next
32
section is sacrifice. Making the right oblation is integral to leading a righteous life as a Hindu,
but this focus on the concept of sacrifice is apparent in other matters as well. For women, it
seems that there are constant reminders in scripture on putting someone else's best interest
before your own. In doing so, in playing the role of the virtuous wife, a Hindu woman will be
allowed to join her husband in the afterlife. That particular role is clear-cut and allows for no
secondary interpretations. I would be remiss to not explore this role here further, especially
because some of the attitudinal differences are positively shocking to me. Revisiting the Laws
of Manu (Muller & Buhler, 1886) shows just how boxed-in and pressurized Hindu women
can be. A woman of any age is not allowed to do anything on her own, independent from
either her father, husband or her sons in different stages of her life (147-148). Separation or
divorce is contemptible (149) and she must always be on her best behaviour (150). She must
maintain a lifelong obedience to the man her father gives her away to (151) and in the event
of his death she must not remarry or have children for it will make her lose her reserved place
in the beyond (161-162). Violating these duties will cause her soul after death to 'enter the
womb of a jackal, tormented by diseases' (164). But fulfilling these duties, fulfilling the role
of the virtuous wife, will bring her the ultimate prize; a place next to her beloved in the
afterlife. There is an interesting question to be asked here in regards to moksha and whether or
not a female soul can ever attain it. I have not found convincing evidence in the scriptures that
states whether or not this is possible. There is only baseless conjecture from old Hindu
scholars who dictated that moksha was only attainable for a male soul due to a female soul
inherently having more intense emotions.
Another important difference in the attitudes towards women compared to men is the right of
men to remarry after the death of their spouses. Granted, they are urged to stay in their houses
for the remainder of their 'second period of life' (169), but they are not ordered to live out
their days alone. This becomes particularly controversial when a concept like sati exists in
Hindu culture. Sati is the willing suicide by fire of a Hindu widow, at first glance so griefstricken by the death of her husband that she endeavours to join him. The purifying fires of
sacrifice feature heavily in Hindu culture; regular oblations of grain or animals are burned and
the fumes inhaled to appropriate the beneficial effect of the sacrifice. The god of fire, Agni, is
hailed through the use of flames and seeing as he doubles as messenger of the gods, the
rationale behind sati might very well be that Agni has the capacity to bring together two
connected souls. The fire also seems to have a cleansing property, expiating the sins that both
partners accrue during life. It is understandably hard to clarify what the rationale behind
something so complex as sati can be. This isn't a symbolic sacrifice of an inanimate item that
33
both partners held dear (even though those symbolic satis also exist) or even a symbolic
animal sacrifice; this is willing self-immolation. The role of women in the family sphere
informs their duties as subservient protector of the honor of the family's males. By ending
their lives, they eradicate the possibility of dishonoring the deceased husband's family. In
death, a sati widow protects her husband still and one can imagine that sati then might not be
done completely of the widow's own accord. Indeed, throughout the ages conceptions of the
heroic, self-efficacious widow and the sati victim of the ever-present pressurized social order
have clashed. For the ones who are left behind, it is often troublesome to escape accusations
of having somehow encouraged your family member to turn to the pyre (Major, 2006). Even
though sati has been outlawed by the Indian government since 1987, recorded incidents of sati
show it still being performed as recent as the previous decade. In a larger cultural sense,
suicide is a method that some Hindu women employ when feeling trapped by a rigid social
system. Guzder (2011) explains this quite eloquently when stating the following:
The act of suicide then can be seen as a swinging bridge between these two
motifs of agency that assert women's identifications as assaulted victim (exposing a
moral dilemma from a position of defeat) or alternatively as defiant, triumphing or
fighter against injustice. Either of these options could be seen as ways of transcending
social impasses in which women feel oppressed, silenced, limited, diminished, or
blocked in their routes to conflict resolution or negotiation. Often these women left
notes to indict the unfair treatment or perpetrators of their trauma. Universally, being
held accountable for another person's suicide is a distressing legacy. However, in
South Asian context where shame and social disapproval are strong containers of
reputation, social cohesion and social identity, public suicide is a strong indictment by
the unjustly oppressed. The religious belief in reincarnation and the prevalence of
beliefs in bhuts (ghosts) further pervades the social space and lends impact from the
suicide victim (Guzder, 2011, p. 599).
It would be a mistake to lump all female suicides in together as either victims or agentic
individuals. The point stands however that some see no other way out of a position of
victimisation, out of a life of unilateral obedience, than taking their own lives and sometimes
shaming their tormentors in the process. Others will most definitely employ the same method
to truly become closer to their loved ones or out of some other religious conviction. However,
keep in mind here that for Hindus death is not the eternal end of life (Doniger, 2009).
34
3.7 The fires of sacrifice and their role in Hindu victimhood
Hindu mythology is replete with heroic characters fighting for their countries, cities or
families. Some raze entire armies to the ground with impractically large, ardent swords, others
curse the deceiving and the corrupt through great devotion to the gods and religious fervor.
Yet another group of characters can be typified by their being, in some way or another, a
sacrificial victim. Earlier I've commented on the story of Nachiketas in the Katha Upanishad
and mentioned his eagerness to be sacrificed. This eagerness isn't a unique aspect belonging
solely to Nachiketas' character, it also features in other stories perhaps to showcase great
devotion. I like to look at these mythological stories as moralistic tales in the same way I look
at most of the Bible's verses and a large portion of the Quran. In my opinion they are written
the way they are so that those who read them can distill a moral from them, something they
can then utilise in their own lives. To write a story that features a fearless man who would
gladly sacrifice himself (for the greater good) then, could inspire selfless action and
compassion in those who read it. There is a certain reciprocity in Hinduism, in its concepts of
life and death, in their immutable philosophical ideals and the ever-changing reality (echoing
Plato) and also in its creation story. The Vedas recount that in the beginning of time, the gods
performed the initial sacrifice, using as their victim Purusha, an anthropomorphisation of the
cosmic idea of Man. This divine Self was sacrificed to constitute the universe and to create
the facets of the world. It is self-referential to the greatest degree that the gods sacrifice a
divine being/concept, somehow giving up a part of themselves to themselves as both
sacrificers and victims, as both subject and object of the ritual (Doniger, 2009). The White
Yajurveda explains this by stating: ''Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim: these were the
earliest holy ordinances ''(Griffith, 1899, p. 205). Out of Purusha came the world as we know
it, the animals were made out of various parts of his body in the same way that the sky was
formed from them. It seems clear that sacrifice lies at the centre of Hindu mythology.
It is a small step from a cosmic sacrifice, a ritual performed on a scale so grand that no one
can be sure that it actually happened, to a tangible sacrifice performed by men in honor of
those gods that took part in the cosmic sacrifice. It was simply the next best thing and
assuredly something that would please the gods. You would perhaps expect that these early
sacrifices featured humans as victims and while there is some spotty evidence for that, it is
commonly believed that human sacrifice was done in the symbolic sense only. This partly
explains why there are instructions in the Vedas for doing human sacrifices. Doniger explains
this as follows:
35
It may well be that the human sacrifice (purusha-medha [“sacrifice of a man”])
was simply a part of the Brahmin imaginary, a fantasy of “the sacrifice to end all
sacrifices.” What is most likely is that these texts are saying that human beings are,
like all other animals, fit to be sacrificed to the gods, that they are, as it were, the
livestock of the gods. What animals are to us, we are to the gods (Doniger, 2009, p.
145).
She continues to argue that 'sacrificeability' was given down from man to other animals,
descending in worth, eventually ending up in simple wheat and grains. This falls neatly in line
with her idea of animal-man relations being a proxy for man-god relations and explains why
in some stories a farm crop can substitute for a human sacrifice. This is apparent in the story
of Shunahshepha, the middle child of a heinous Brahmin whose father sells him to an ailing
king. King Haris’chandra had consulted his family's sage Vas’istha on how to cure himself
from his oedema after sacrificing his own son proved an impossible feat, and the sage rather
unscrupulously stated that he could petition the god of water, Varuna, to cure him if he
offered up a good Brahmin boy. It had been the same Varuna who had cursed the king to
endure the swelling of his body because he did not uphold his promise of sacrificing his own
son. Shunahshepha is bought and prepared to be sacrificed until another great sage named
Vishvamitra sees what is unfolding and stops it. He urges the king to reconsider, noting that it
would be a most vicious act to sacrifice a young boy. The king denies his request and this
angers the sage greatly. Vishvamitra teaches the boy the Varuna Mantram while he is already
tied to the sacrificial post and the boy recites it at length, making Varuna show up in person.
The god has mercy on the boy and surprisingly also on the king, letting the first go free and
healing the second of his illness. In different versions of this same tale, Shunahshepha is
replaced at the last minute with a soma plant (Vijñanananda, 1921/1922, Doniger, 2009,
Griffith, 1870-1874).
Lastly, after observing the roots of sacrifice in Hinduism and seeing how human sacrifices can
be altered and substituted, there are also stories in which the human sacrifice is fulfilled and
all its ramifications are shown. Where Nachiketas' story was a vehicle for a discussion about
life and death, the story of Somaka and Jantu delves deeper into what the consequences are
for the sacrificer and the victim. Somaka, a virtuous king, had a hundred wives who only gave
him one son when he was already old. This one son was named Jantu, a beautiful boy, and he
was understandably greatly loved by all his mothers. When he was stung by an ant and
screamed out in pain all his mothers rallied to his side and his father lamented that having just
36
one son, in such a volatile and dangerous society, was not going to be enough to safeguard his
legacy. He consulted his family's sage for advice who told him that a ritual existed to ensure
him 'a century of handsome sons' but it would mean sacrificing Jantu. As soon as Jantu's fat
would hit the flames, all hundred wives should take in the sacrificial smell and they would be
instantly pregnant of a multitude of valorous sons and Jantu himself would even be reborn of
the same mother, this time with a golden mark on his back to signal his sacrifice and
significance. As the sage said it would happen, so it happened. It would seem that the story
ends there, on a positive note exemplifying devotion, sacrifice and faith. But it continues
when both the sage and Somaka have departed for the afterlife and the king encounters the
sage being punished severely with infernal fire. Understanding that it is the fact that the sage
had officiated a human sacrifice that delivered him into the punishing hands of Yama's
minions, Somaka pleads to take his place but is denied by the Dharmaraja (literally the King
of Dharma). He is given the choice to continue alone to the heavenly realms (due to his
meritorious deeds in life) or to share in the gruelling punishment that still awaits the priest.
Tellingly, Somaka opts for the latter, shouldering the burden of punishment with his good
friend and after having been cleansed of their shared sin, sharing his heavenly gifts with him
as well (Ganguli, 1883-1896).
The story of Somaka and Jantu brings me full circle to the important concepts of Hindu
victimhood. It showcases the role of sacrifice in Hindu life. The rationale behind the
sacrificial victim seems to be that through devotion and endurance greater rewards still lie in
the future (Jantu is reborn as a better, more important version of himself). These same
concepts together with forgiveness are what a Hindu victim should exhibit. The royal
perpetrator is not held accountable for his deeds but instead takes responsibility for them
himself out of compassion for his sage friend. The reciprocity the king exhibits in choosing to
suffer punishment for his sins together with the sage exemplifies how pain and suffering are
seen as educative, expiative tools in Hinduism. These tools are not seen as the instruments of
victimisation but as the instruments of learning, attaining knowledge through them to
someday achieve the ultimate goal of cosmic release.
37
Chapter IV: Uncovering current views on religious victimhood through interviews
In the previous chapters it will have become clear that nearly all the references, notions,
elements and concepts depicted were taken from historic sources. Of course, it seems only
natural that researching notions of victimhood in religions means you will have to focus on
scriptures and other sources that have existed for thousands of years, often times in an
immutable and indeed sacrosanct form. What does change though is the way in which certain
generations of believers interpret these texts and customs, the ways in which believers
perform their religious traditions. Therefore I felt it necessary to test the historic notions of
religious victimhood from the previous chapters against believers' opinions in the present.
This testing process hopefully infuses this thesis with some present-day validity.
Methodologically speaking, I would categorise the approach to content analysis in these
interviews as a directed approach seeing as I am using the interviews to validate the
conceptual frameworks of the first three chapters (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The design of the
interviews falls between the standardized open-ended format which is apparent in the starter
questions on religiosity and the general interview guide approach for the rest of the interview
questions that ensured every interviewee was confronted with the same general areas of
information allowing for some room for personal interpretation if the interview warranted it
(Turner, 2010). Having already explained why I chose the qualitative interviewing method in
the introduction, I will not elaborate on that process here. Suffice it to say that the results from
these interviews should only be seen as anecdotal evidence either proving or disproving that
concepts from the first three chapters still have a place in the religious zeitgeist of the now. I
contacted different places of worship (churches/congregations, mosques, temples), experts at
various institutions (universities, cultural centres) and social groups (students' associations,
social clubs) either by phone, e-mail or physical visits. Sadly, the responses I received were
minimal thereby forcing my hand in opting for only a small amount of interviews. I aimed at
interviewing believers who I placed in one of three different categories hoping to uncover
some differing opinions. These categories consisted of average believers (those who typify the
standard believer in their religion), believers who felt an intense bond with their religion and
religious officials/experts who had studied and taught the same scriptures I had also
researched. Knowing that I was only going to be able to interview a small number of people, I
aimed at securing three interviews per religion, each of those fulfilling a category. Interviews
38
were scheduled to last for half an hour to forty-five minutes but I can report with some
satisfaction that most interviews frequently crossed that threshold, leading to a greater amount
of information gathered and often times illuminating conversations on the topic.
I borrowed my starter questions about religiosity (to confirm how religious an interviewee
was and to consequently secure them as a member of one of the three categories) from
previous research done by de Jong, Ophuis and myself (2010). In our efforts to devise a
religiosity questionnaire irrespective of any particular religion we combined questions aimed
at understanding religious attitude, identity and behaviour to obtain a questionnaire with high
internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .971). These questions can be said to reliably
measure a single construct, which in this case would be religiosity expressed in religious
attitude, identity and behaviour. The following questions were used here:
- (Monthly) frequency of thoughts of divine figures, prayer, meditation (deep religious
thought), religious service attendance, scripture reading and a feeling of closeness to
divine figures.
- Do you see your faith as a source of comfort?
- Does your faith impact many of your big life decisions?
- Are private religious thoughts and/or meditation important to you? (Contrast) Is
attending a religious service in a congegration important to you?
- Do you feel that people talk about you when you hear them talk about your religion?
- Do you believe in life after death?
- Do you regularly consult your faith during everyday decision-making? (Contrast) Is
your faith mostly something you turn to when you are in need of comfort? (de Jong,
Oomen, Ophuis, 2010)
While these questions were mostly used to confirm the placement of the interviewee into one
of the three categories, the responses showed some interesting findings. Following these
opening questions, I illustrated in very general terms to the interviewees what the word
'victimhood' entailed, how victims seem to be becoming a staple of everyday life and how the
field of victimology tries to improve situations and positions that victims find themselves in.
After accustoming the interviewees to the core concept of victimhood, I would then pose them
an open-ended question to reveal what their opinions of victims in general were. What do you
think of when you hear the word 'victim'? Any characteristic, virtue or situation that emerged
39
from the interviewee would inform me of their general stance on victims. I continued by
posing virtually the same question but this time incorporating an 'ideal' victim. Note that I am
not using the Nils Christie definition here because I am not interested in what they think of the
victim that generates the most sympathy from society. I opted instead for the 'ideal' victim to
be the one who deals with his/her victimisation optimally. What are the characteristics,
virtues, situations or mindstates that you imagine would be helpful or necessary to deal with
victimisation? The responses to this question segued neatly into my next questions where I
would go over the historic notions of victimhood found in the applicable chapter (I, II or III),
but not before leaving some room for the interviewee to talk about personal experiences with
victimhood. Again to my great satisfaction, some took a hold of this opportunity to share
intense personal moments of grief, epiphany, clarity and sorrow. I've opted not to write down
verbatim the personal stories of victimisation not because of objections from the interviewees
but due to relevance and not wanting to needlessly pad this thesis with examples. In summary,
many of my interviewees have known varying amounts of suffering in their personal lives.
Some also experienced moments of epiphany, moments that brought them closer to their God.
Others have had to endure hardships and came out stronger in the end, their faith and lust for
life fortified by the experience.
Consequently I discussed the Christian, Islamic or Hindu elements of victimhood, asking
them if they were still actual and inviting them to add to them if there was an important
element that I had neglected to mention. From all this information, I could distill my
interviewees' opinions on religious victimhood.
At the end of every interview I approached the subject of theodicy by posing the question
whether or not the divine figures who my interviewees worshipped were somehow
responsible for the suffering that is apparent in our world. As a clarifying follow-up I
sometimes split up worldly suffering in natural disasters and suffering caused by man. The
responses to these last questions will feature in the fifth chapter of this thesis. I will now
summarise the results of the interiews in the remainder of this chapter.
Christian interviews
My Christian interviewees were a 95-year-old retired marriage officiant (male), a 23-year-old
student involved in a Christian students' association (female) and a 38-year-old pastor (male).
Their order is based on the categories that I have placed them in following their responses to
the starter questions (standard believer/intense believer/religious official). All prayed daily but
other elements of religiosity like reading scripture and church visits were less equally
40
distributed. One particular concept that they shared was their belief that putting in the time to
worship their religious figures eventually rewarded them in some way. This is not to say that
they expected to be rewarded for say, praying, but all three recognized that to get something
out of religion, you have to put time, effort and devotion in and do so not just in an individual
setting but for some also in a congegration. Seeing their religion as something that provided
them with comfort and strength, it was no surprise that their advice for victims involved
turning to religion.
There is a degree of powerlessness that came to the forefront when asked about their general
stances on victims. The situation victims find themselves in is one they themselves do not
choose and where one portrayed life on a macro-level as a situation people find themselves in
without their consent, another held that being victimised is much more personal, a product of
the differing temperaments between people. When prompted to explain how a victim should
optimally deal with their victimisation, the answers I received seemed to point mainly towards
forgiveness. A utopian thought to some, forgiveness implied a release from a cycle of
retribution and vengeance that echoed Christ's teachings. Other concepts that came up
included acquiescence, finding comfort in prayer and devotion, patience, endurance and
searching for others who have had similar experiences and attaining a level of understanding
in conversing with them. That feeling of being understood, where someone else recognizes
your victim status and offers an embrace (both physically and emotionally) was of particular
necessity to some. Overall I think that their general views of victims portray a certain
passivity but that their suggested methods for overcoming victimisation involves adopting an
active stance, to actively work through the pain so to speak.
When I finally confronted my interviewees with my research on the notions of victimhood, a
lot of notions had already been talked about. That was just my intention and discussing my
researched notions of victimhood before giving the interviewees a chance to think of them on
their own might have resulted in leading questioning and yes-manning. A lot of notions were
affirmed through this discussion chief among them passivity in victimisation (choosing not to
take revenge), mercy and forgiveness, reciprocity in suffering and the virtue of equanimity.
We then discussed the remaining concepts that according to my research made up Christian
victimhood. All saw Jesus Christ as a figure of inspiration, a man so unjustly victimised who
was able to face his suffering with the utmost dignity and piety. To some he exemplified the
thought that victimisation is not pointless, that even suffering and death aren't without hope or
reason and even though we don't necessarily know why, we do know that suffering isn't the
end of life. Suffering is seen as a necessary condition for growth in life and therefore
41
victimisation has meaning. On the topic of the test-of-faith narrative as an explanation for
victimhood, all seemed convinced that it was a far too easy explanation. But they did admit
that there has to be an acceptance that what happens to you, happens because God has had
some say in it. You can become angry about this but all you are doing is becoming angry
because you do not fully grasp the ways in which God handles matters. And there has to be an
acceptance that you probably never will understand His ways to be able to give victimisation
a place in life. When talking about shouldering each other's burden, all realised that through
prayer and support and sometimes through something as small as sacrificing time to listen to
someone, you can help to lessen someone else's burden. This was definitely something that
had remained in the Christian spirit of our times. One of my interviewees concludingly noted
that there was a newfound focus on victims in the current Christian zeitgeist and experienced
this as a very positive development. I would argue that this very thesis is a proponent of that
newfound focus not just in Christianity but Western society in general.
In summary, I would argue that the research into the notions of Christian victimhood from
Chapter I holds up well. Nearly all concepts proved to be important for the modern-day
Christian with forgiveness and acceptance being chief among them.
Muslim interviews
Early on in doing the Muslim interviews I realised that Islam played a very meaningful role in
the lives of all three of my interviewees. Even though they all seemed to fit neatly in the three
categories of mean, intense and pastoral levels of religiosity, they all reported thinking and
being in contact with Allah every single moment of their lives. My interviewees were a 46year-old factory operator (male), a 36-year-old house painter (male) and a 34-year-old Islamic
studies teacher (female) (in order of standard/intense/religious expert levels). Prayer was an
important part of daily life for all, even though some found it difficult to find the time for the
five daily prayers in their busy lives. The spiritual act of praying requires the physical act of
kneeling and bowing, something that some interviewees experienced as physically relieving
and relaxing. When asked about whether or not the interviewees ever meditated, some
responded that they did so daily. For one it meant going over the events of the day mentally
and searching for a religious meaning in those events, for another it meant tefekkur, becoming
aware of the divine through focus on the physical body and control of personal thoughts.
Their frequencies of mosque visits varied from going once every three weeks to going three to
four times each week. Important here was the sentiment that all three went as much as their
daily lives and routines allowed them too. Reading holy literature (Quran, hadiths, tafsir) was
42
deemed important to all but predictably the more religious the interviewee was, the more they
read them. In particular the focus on tafsir (detailing the subtext of the succinctly written
Quran) showed that even though the Quran is the central holy text of the faith, you need more
than just that book to fully grasp what it means to be a Muslim. There is a theoretical base to
Islam that a Muslim has to understand before he/she can experience in practice all the facets
of faith. Feeling a closeness to Allah was often times equated with thinking about Allah and
thereby unsurprisingly most reported that this too was a daily occurrence. One interviewee
remarked that the more time you spend thinking about your religion, the closer the connection
with Allah feels which exemplifies the concepts of reciprocity and reward. The concept of
reward has an important place in the faith because all three believed that throughout life on
this Earth their actions were judged and graded, and the points tallied on Judgment Day. This
connected to the notion that there was a life after death (something all three believed very
strongly) and that the quality of that life would be based on the quality of our acts in this one.
All three reported that their religion was a source of comfort to them although some argued
that comfort was just a small part of the completely fulfilling feeling their faith provided them
with. Their faith also influenced the larger decisions they made in life, for instance their job
choices and eating habits. There was an interesting result when asking the interviewees
whether personal religious thoughts or religious thoughts in a congegration were more
important to them. Both male interviewees reported that thoughts and prayer in a group were
more important to them, citing that Islam was a faith of brotherhood and that a group could
provide you with the answers to your questions. My female interviewee had previously noted
that prayer in a mosque was deemed more valuable for men than prayer at home, even though
she reported that religious thoughts were important in both the individual and group contexts.
This might point toward gender differences in prayer attitudes. All three reported that they felt
a connection to their faith when they heard other people talking about Islam, with one
interviewee saying that they enjoyed enriching people's lives with knowledge of the faith.
Results on whether the interviewees consulted their faith for daily decision-making or more
often as a source of comfort were so varied that all three reported different opinions.
When asked about their general opinions on victims, all three of my interviewees immediately
thought of terrorism. It is perhaps no surprise that for those who adhere to the faith in the
righteous way, terrorism that abuses that faith to legitimise violence and murder is so salient
when thinking of victims. There was a stark rejection of any sort of religious condoning of
terrorism-related violence in the responses I collected. But for some interviewees there was
also confusion, a result of a bevy of disinformation and prophetic texts apparently predicting
43
an organisation like ISIL. The concepts of equality between people, forgiveness and nonviolence that were very important to my interviewees, juxtaposed with the exact opposite
concepts apparent in terrorist groups led to cognitive dissonance in some. To get to the core
concepts that my interviewees held about victims, I often had to be creative and for instance
ask about what kind of roles victims play in this age of terrorism and fundamentalism. One
interviewee reported that while it is commonly believed that a person who suffers unjustly
accrues heavenly rewards, this is only true for those victims that are truly innocent. Creating
victims through your actions is almost never allowed. Some argued that the permission to do
so only condones self-defense while others argued that only an attack on the faith justifies
violent action and indeed holy war (jihad). Other core concepts that came up were hope,
having faith, acceptance and a belief in the test-of-faith narrative. Strategies to optimally deal
with victimisation ranged from becoming more engrossed in Islam through prayer, the reading
of holy literature and visits to the mosque to exhibiting patience and acceptance of your
destiny.
When I talked about the historic notions of Muslim victimhood with my interviewees, it
quickly became apparent that some of the concepts had undergone vigorous reinterpretation
over the years. The first notions that we discussed, endurance and patience, were still held as
being very important if not the most important. This played into the same reward scheme that
was previously apparent when talking about life after death. To endure whatever you
experience will ultimately lead to some form of reward. Acceptance of suffering in life
thereby came quite naturally to all the interviewees. Other concepts that still had actual merit
were respect, devotion, piety and the unquestioned authority of Allah. A notion that one
interviewee added was gratitude, and he argued that the reason suffering exists in this world
might be to confront people with their own situation in life, to hopefully make them
understand how to be grateful for what they have. One of the most controversial topics, the
position of women in Islam, was talked about at length. One interviewee held that current
Muslim tradition venerates equality between people and that, if anything, women were seen as
more important and holy than men. A hadith passage was quoted by some, saying that 'heaven
lies beneath the feet of your mother', something that indicated how celebrated women were to
them. The interviewees unanimously discarded the notion that the position of women was
inferior to that of men. On the topics of polygamy and wifebeating I received similar
responses of disbelief and an acceptance of gender equality. Some pointed to cultural norms
that have promoted the idea of gender inequality but argued that it was not an idea based on
religious values. This same train of thought was used to explain why several of the hadiths
44
that I mentioned in Chapter II seemed so sexist towards women. Another concluded that there
are a lot of hadiths that are unreliable. There are but a handful of hadith authors that can be
seen as completely trustworthy and none of the authors of the hadiths that I used for the
chapter were among them. My female interviewee did argue that women are expected to show
modesty, to not call attention to themselves. But this was not an oppressive sentiment
according to her, but rather one of piety and I think also of equanimity. Another controversial
topic was retaliation. While I expected that Muslims would be familiar with the ideas of blood
money and vengeance, my interviewees absolutely did not think that these notions were still
relevant. Creating additional victims after being victimised was seen as contemptible but
tellingly the concept of paying blood money was also foreign to all of the interviewees. They
preferred to think in terms of forgiveness, piety and mutual respect and this cast the current
Muslim tradition as much more in line with the Christian one. One interviewee did state
however that my information was factually correct (meaning that the specific hadiths and
suras about blood money and retaliation existed) but that by using tafsir, they did not interpret
these texts in the literal sense. Concludingly, the concepts of steadfastness and loyalty to
Allah and fellow Muslims were also viewed as important core values.
Overall I would argue that many of the concepts discussed in Chapter II have some relevance
for the Muslims of today. However, the interviewees threw out the notion of the perceived
lesser position of women in favour of equality. Likewise, the perceived focus on retaliation
was diminished and forgiveness was preferred. These observations imply that these
controversial topics mentioned in Chapter II do not have much relevance today.
Hindu interviews
For the Hindu interviews, I soon realised that my research in this thesis was heavily
predicated on information that was now seen as outdated. Hinduism's status as one of the
oldest religions in the world implicitly means that current believers can have vastly different
opinions on the holy literature compared to how the literature was viewed in Hinduism's
earlier eras. Of course this argument is valid for the other two religions seeing as they aren't
particularly new either, but for the Hindu interviews the situation often arose where an
interviewee would reject a notion from Chapter III.
My Hindu interviewees were a 51-year-old warehouse employee (male), a 22-year-old student
(female) who was also a board member at her local temple and a 35-year-old Hindu
scholar/teacher or Pandit (male) who was also a mental healthcare worker (in order of
standard/intense/religious official levels). Prayer seemed an important part of everyday life
45
for all my interviewees. For some, their connection to their divine figures was so pervasive
that they could be said to be constantly thinking of them. Meditation and/or yoga was not
perceived as very important even though some had some experiences with it in the past. For
most, personal religious thoughts were judged to be more important than practicing the faith
in a congegration even though all recognised that the latter had its merits. It seems that many
Hindus adorn their houses with statues and images of their gods, making frequent visits to a
temple unnecessary (because they are able to perform their religious duties and rituals at
home). Most were able to look to their religion for comfort and support in times of need and
kept their religion in mind when making life-altering decisions (e.g. where to live or work,
what to eat). When asked about victimhood in general, most revealed an immediate
consideration for the pain that victims are in, be it mental or physical. Secondly, their
thoughts focused on the ethical responsibility that we have as people to try and prevent
victimisation from happening and to prevent victims from becoming revictimised. When
asked about the ideal way in which victims could handle their victimisation, some turned to
faith while others emphasised personal strength, courage and endurance. Finding stability in
the face of uncertain situations was judged as an important coping mechanism and avenues in
which to find that stability ranged from social support structures (e.g. family and friends) to
victim support groups.
Some of the historic notions of victimhood were integral to the current Hindu mindset, while
others seemed to be discarded completely. The first notion I discussed with the interviewees,
personal growth through victimisation, was something that was deemed of utmost importance
to the way Hindus deal with negative life experiences. Indicative of an ability to employ longterm thinking was the notion that suffering makes you a better person and that undeserved
suffering offsets unrelated bad things you might have done in life through karma. Another key
indicator of this mindset was the journey towards moksha, the ultimate soul release. Some
interpreted moksha as a path to cosmic salvation, others opted to also see moksha as
something that could be as easily achieved as simply passing a test or fulfilling a social
obligation. When confronted with the tenfold law, most of my interviewees recognized the ten
virtues as exemplary of the Hindu lifestyle. Others adamantly discarded the notion that this
law was only aimed at the priestly caste, instead opting to see these ten notions as a Hindu 'ten
commandments', applicable to every single soul. 'The soul is not and never will be beholden
to the caste system' was a powerful statement I heard that seemed to exemplify the views of
Dutch Hindu diaspora members towards the social stratification system still affecting society
in India. In particular, forgiveness, contentment and honesty resonated as important virtues
46
with all of the interviewees. The quantifying of the victim's victimhood to ascertain the
punishment standards for offenders was something that all interviewees condemned as
barbaric. Differing punishment standards for identical crimes but different victims spoke
towards the same moral indignation that many interviewees experienced vis-à-vis the caste
system. It seems that the current Hindu tradition values equality between people as extremely
important and some reinterpret or disregard holy literature that says otherwise, citing
translation and interpretation issues throughout the years. This proved much the same for the
position of women in Hindu culture. My research theorised that Hindu women would not be
treated as equals but suggestions that this injustice persisted today were quickly negated by
vehemently argued positions of equality, respect and sometimes even reverence for women as
the life-giving force of nature. However, my sole female interviewee divulged that for some
Hindu diaspora priests the historic notion of women being somehow less than men was alive
and well in the here and now. This created a strange paradox in which Hindu mythology is
one of the few world-spanning religions that venerates female divinity in the form of a myriad
of goddesses while Hindu social structure derogates women at the same time. If anything, the
information provided by this particular interviewee denotes that while equality is an important
virtue, its practical execution is still often flawed. The interviewees' responses to the concept
of sati were unanimously negative, all explaining that while it still is something that occurs in
conservative parts of India, it has no place in the current Hindu zeitgeist due to the evolution
of women's rights. Throughout the interviews one important concept pervaded nearly every
topic of discussion. Karma affects everything in life and was understandably deemed an
important part of dealing with victimhood. Sometimes victimhood would be seen as just
deserts for those who had upset the karmic balance by performing awful acts. Other times,
undeserved suffering and pain were construed as punishments for acts done in a past life.
What is interesting in this train of thought is the constant acceptance of whatever
victimisation befalls the victim as just, either in this life or in the grand scheme of
reincarnation. It seems unfathomable to me to be at peace with a punishment for something
you yourself had no immediate hand in but to see this sentiment so clearly in all of the
interviews really underlined its importance. The temporary nature of punishment in the Hindu
underworld also sparked a lot of interest. While none of the interviewees recognized the story
of Jantu and King Somaka, the notion that infernal punishment is meant to be re-educational
and expiative for the soul as well as only temporary resonated in a big way. This notion also
connected with the virtues of forgiveness, sacrifice and humility. On sacrifice and its role in
Hindu culture, I was told that every Hindu should strive to be a sewak, a servant of the divine,
47
and possess the ability to perform sacrificial rituals prescribed in the Vedas among other
literature. For some 'sacrifice' meant as much as doing volunteer work (sacrificing time and
effort) where making the effort to help your fellow man implied a transitive caring for the
divine (man being inextricably linked with his maker). For others, it meant the actual process
of offering up fruits and liquids to the gods in a penitent way or to exhibit devotion.
Concludingly, it seems that my research into the notions of Hindu victimhood has its flaws.
While some notions have no prevailing relevance, others certainly do. Karma with its many
implications across life seems to influence the way in which Hindus approach victimhood the
most.
This chapter has been about whether or not the previous chapters had any relevance to the
world we live in today. After having done these interviews I would posit that yes, it definitely
does. While some concepts appear to be all but forgotten, others are thriving in the belief
structures of the faithful. Those same belief structures are often predicated on a belief in
almighty gods, omnibenevolent and omniscient deities. But if there is a belief in a being with
all those capabilities and power, why then does suffering exist and persist in all our lives? To
defend your belief structure against this sort of questioning, many utilise a theodicy. The fifth
chapter of this thesis consists of research into theodicy from different fields.
48
Chapter V: Perspectives on theodicy
The fifth chapter of this thesis will focus on the concept of theodicy. Theodicy is something
that I construct as quintessentially human. We defend our belief systems by coming up with a
satisfying reasoning for why situations occur. Rather than amending our belief systems, we
prefer to reframe experiences and situations to fit within them. We do this in conversation
with others but perhaps mostly in conversation with ourselves. This makes our worldview
leading and this type of reasoning invalidates thoughts that might be factually correct but
poison to the way we see the world and ourselves. Throughout this thesis I've encountered
several different theodicies. For Christians, I proposed that the test-of-faith narrative might be
an important notion related to their views on victimhood. My Christian interviews however
reflected that this narrative might be a far too simplistic train of thought, its use as a theodicy
is thus debatable. For Muslims, endurance and piety came to the forefront regarding
victimhood and surely being able to endure whatever you experience in the hopes that it will
bring you closer to Allah can be a valid theodicy. The Muslim interviews proposed that the
test-of-faith narrative had some relevance as a theodicy. For Hindus, victimisation was not
seen as a completely negative experience, which might naturally invoke acceptance. From the
Hindu interviews I gathered that none fully blamed their gods for the existence of suffering in
the world. Most explained that it is humans who cause suffering and that we as people are
therefore responsible for victimisation in one way or another (something that neatly fits with
the idea of karma). One of the interviewees however held on to the belief that while the gods
are doing their utmost, they also grant the prayers of the wicked and therefore have a hand in
allowing negativity into this world.
Philosophical and theological arguments
But these select examples are but a small portion of the theodicies I encountered in my
research. For a philosophical view I turned to Plantinga's free will defense (1974). Plantinga
utilised reductive logical reasoning to form an answer to the problem of evil. He stated that in
order for God to create a world in which 'good' exists, He had to provide man with free will to
freely choose to do 'good'. This reasoning is based on the idea that a world populated by
persons having free will is essentially better than a world in which no creature is free at all.
What follows from this is that if He gives man free will, inevitably some will use this free will
to commit 'evil' acts. God here is still seen as omnipotent and omnibenevolent because He
49
could have created a world in which no evil exists but only at the cost of living completely
preordained lives devoid of true freedom. Plantinga's free will defense tries to expand on the
possibility that God has a good reason for permitting evil, but that man isn't able to fully
ascertain what that reason is. The compatibility of the existence of evil with the existence of
God makes this defense a popular one among believers. Certainly the idea that we cannot
fully grasp God's reasoning is something that was previously depicted in the stories of Job and
Ayoub. It is also a theodicy that I've encountered in a couple of my interviews where my
interviewees would express the hope that the divine had some form of plan for them and that
they had faith in that plan without knowing exactly what it was. When attributing negative life
experiences to God's will, this argument can also be utilised to more easily accept His actions
and your own misfortune.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1965) expanded upon that sort of reasoning when he stated that God
chastises those He loves, echoing Hebrews 12. Accepting hardships and suffering as
chastisement, as a sign of God's love for us, is another way of reconciling those hardships
with faith. Going a step further with that concept, Martyn Lloyd-Jones argued that nearly all
of the great figures of Christian scripture were severely tried by God and attributing the
hardships you face to God testing you surely has everything to do with the test-of-faith
narrative. The setbacks that befall a person are all part of a larger plan, part of an ultimate
objective that will come to fruition on Judgment Day. It is interesting to note that all of my
Muslim interviewees held particularly strong beliefs about this final of days on which their
'life points' accrued through good and bad experiences would be tallied and a final decision
about their souls would be made. This speaks to a particular ability to place suffering on a
scale and to employ long-term thinking.
This notion that God causes suffering as a way of chastising or educating people is something
that also features in Hick's soul-making theodicy (Meister, 2009). Hick discarded the idea that
God made generally 'good' persons who by virtue of their free will decide to sin and commit
'evil' acts. He held that we are immature neophytes who are tempered and strenghtened by
experiencing 'evil'. God is our stern father and will let us hit our heads over and over again
hoping we learn something from the experience. Again, this is exemplary of a long-term
strategy of coping with victimisation.
From process theology comes the idea that the world is a continually changing place. People
and God share the world and are constantly adapting, learning, experiencing and thus
changing (Meister, 2009). It is hoped that beneficient change occurs and that we are all
becoming better, smarter, healthier people but that same concept means that God continually
50
incorporates new experiences and choices adding to His overall knowledge. Obviously in
stark contrast to the traditional idea of omniscience, God here is always in the process of
making the world a better place. Evil then is something that exists only temporarily, just until
God has attained a level of knowledge from where He can banish it from our world. Some
argue that this idea is hardly a theodicy, but it does provide a hopeful way of looking at 'evil'
in this world. This particular notion that the gods are doing their utmost to provide for us (but
not always succeeding) was very apparent when I was talking with my Hindu interviewees.
This train of thought might imply that Hindus view their gods as not necessarily omnipotent
as seemed to be the case in one of the interviews. However, their faith allowed them to trust
that their gods were doing all they could to help even in the face of negative life experiences. I
believe that this once again exemplifies the long-term thinking in Hindu victimhood where
good and bad experiences are all part of the same grand journey.
Views from sociology, evolutionary science and psychology
Weber's Sociology of Religion (1920) provided some interesting points on theodicy with
regards to the social structures of religions. His arguments centered mostly on how different
theodicies originated in the collective minds of certain subsets of people. His theodicy of
disprivilege for instance tried to explain how those people who lived in abject poverty and
other horrendous circumstances turned to religion for salvation. He referenced the Hindu
principle of transmigration of the soul as a key component of the relative ease with which
poor and downtrodden Hindus accepted powerful and benevolent gods as their saviors. Rather
than rising up when their divine figures did nothing to help them out of their situations, they
accepted that if they kept their heads down and lived good lives, they would be reincarnated
into a higher caste and would then come into closer contact with the divine. This social
stratification was reinforced by divine literature that focused on personal growth and
atonement and a priestly caste that preached salvation to those who fulfilled their caste's
obligations. Weber's explanations of macro-level religious structure also featured an answer
for where the idea of the authoritarian god came from. In his argument he touched on a
theodicy taken directly from Job. If there is a belief in a just and almighty creator God who
has in some way caused you to act the way you do, why then punish those acts if He himself
is ultimately responsible for them? The solution to this theodicy problem had to have been
that God did not play by humanity's ethical rules and that people were not capable of
understanding what He was thinking leading to the figure of a God who was not to be
questioned. This notion of unquestionable divine authority was particularly important in the
51
conceptualisation of Allah in Islam, something that became quite clear during the Muslim
interviews.
Another view on macro-level theodicy origins comes from the Justification Hypothesis
(Shaffer, 2008). This particular theory that tries to explain how culture is born from the
collective mind of a people can be used to account for the evolution of religion and with it
theodicy. Shaffer argued that when language evolved to a certain point it prompted man to
start justifying his actions to others and themselves. To justify the actions of others, man
utilised the 'mind-reading' technique to assign probable justifications to them. When man was
confronted with unexplainable phenomena in nature he would utilise that same technique to
ascribe justifications to fate, gods or the divine. Shaffer calls this 'animistic attribution' and
with it he tried to explain how divine forces are antropomorphised into figures with humanlike motivations and values. Once man started to conceptualise the divine in this manner it
was only a matter of time before he started to question the figures' motivations and demanded
some form of accountability. Theodicy then is a phenomenon of sufficiently advanced
cultures who have learned to be critical of their own culture and who strive for an intellectual
answer to the problem of evil.
Lastly, there was minimal research from the field of psychology of religion regarding
theodicy. Furnham & Brown (1992) found that theodicies differ between religious
backgrounds and the event that the theodicy is trying to justify. Those who rated their religion
as important to them were more likely to either ascribe events to human ignorance (moral
decay, injustice or inhumanity) or to theological explanations (divine punishment, good may
come from evil, showing the reality of evil or the test-of-faith narrative) than to natural
explanations (the nature of the physical world, bad luck, uncontrollability of events, random
events, because of genetic effect or as a natural part of life). Muslim and Jewish participants
in particular preferred the theological explanations and certainly for the first that is very much
in line with the interviews I've conducted. Tellingly, the Christian interviews garnered
answers to the theodicy question by similarly pointing to human ignorance (in this specific
case the explanation for evil was the differences in temperament between people) and
theological explanations (specifically the belief that the divine mystery has a purpose for
allowing suffering in our world).
In conclusion, I believe that research into theodicy is worth the time and effort to pursue it. It
is an important phenomenon that interacts with religiosity, self-worth and how we construct
the world around us. It asks questions about attribution, accountability and divine justice. And
52
even though we, as humans, might not be fully capable of answering those questions (yet), it
is important to keep trying in our search for the divine. Discussing theodicy makes people
confront their place in the world with what they believe in. This discussion might be
beneficial when trying to overcome experiences of victimisation. The answer to the question
'why me?' is not clear-cut and certainly won't be found in a simple sentence. The search for an
answer will not be easily satiated but continuing the search in spite of that is how you move
on and learn to live with your experiences and memories. The grand journey of Hinduism, the
pious reverence of Islam and the righteous servitude of Christianity all share that notion of
acceptance.
53
Chapter VI: Caveats and conclusions
By writing this thesis I have tried to explore a new field. Victimology looks at the positions of
victims in the world, how they are constructed, maintained and can hopefully be improved.
Religious belief systems influence how people see themselves and construct their worldviews.
As has become apparent in this thesis, certain religious values are important in
conceptualising victimhood and treating victims accordingly is also influenced by the moral
notions of your religion. But there are some limitations on this particular research that I
should mention. It was my fear that the thesis would somehow reflect a certain preference for
one religion over the other. I've struggled with why certain themes appear in certain chapters,
but are missing from others. Chief among these is the absence of a paragraph on the roles of
women in Christianity. Since writing Chapter I it has come to my attention that there are in
fact some issues concerning those roles and a section incorporating for instance the patriarchal
Christian churches or the rise of Christian feminism would be warranted. An addition of that
calibre would necessitate new interviews and because of timing issues I was unable to do
those. Secondly, the references to the controversial hadiths on the role of women, retaliation
and blood money in the second chapter are themselves controversial. In the interviews I was
told that while these sources do exist, they are not written by reliable authors and I should
therefore not presume that their content holds any merit for Muslims today. That would mean
that the way in which the Muslim faith is depicted in the second chapter might be too focused
on these particular notions. The Hindu interviews showed a similar criticism concerning the
role of women so this might also be a valid criticism of the third chapter. This however
touches on the way this thesis was structured. By doing the interviews I tried to validate the
first three chapters and that process showed that some of the information in those chapters
seemed no longer applicable. Some notions remain valid while others seem no longer valid
thereby improving the theoretical framework.
In conclusion, I believe that this thesis provides an in-depth look at the way in which the
three largest religions in the world view victims. Although the different faiths are far from
monolithic, the interviews showed mostly similar responses (while still bearing in mind that
the sample size is too small to be able to say anything significant about that). What is
important to note is that all faiths emphasise forgiveness, patience and acceptance as core
values for victims. This research might help to better understand how religion influences the
way in which certain people deal with victimisation.
54
References
Ammar, N.H. (2007). Wife Battery in Islam: A Comprehensive Understanding of
Interpretations. Violence Against Women, 13, 516-526.
doi:10.1177/1077801207300658
Aslan, R. (2013). Zealot. New York, NY: Random House.
Biggar, N. (2008). Forgiving Enemies in Ireland. Journal of Religious Ethics, 35(4), 559-579.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9795.2008.00362.x
Brabeck, K.M. & Guzmán, M.R. (2008). Frequency and Perceived Effectiveness of Strategies
to Survive Abuse Employed by Battered Mexican-Origin Women. Violence Against
Women, 14(11), 1274-1294. doi:10.1177/1077801208325087
Rev. Calder, A. (2004). ''God Has Chosen This for You''- Really? Journal of Religion,
Disability & Health, 8(1-2), 5-19, doi:10.1300/J095v08n01_02
Castelli, E.A. (2006). The Ambivalent Legacy of Violence and Victimhood: Using Early
Christian Martyrs to Think With. Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality, 6(1), 124. doi:10.1353/scs.2006.0028
Denney, D., Gabe, J. & O'Beirne, M. (2008). Anglican Clergy as Victims of Routinized
Violent Activities in Urban and Rural Localities. Sociology, 42(1), 83–99. doi:
10.1177/0038038507084826
Doniger, W. (2009). The Hindus: An Alternative History. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Furnham, A. & Brown, L.B. (1992). Theodicy: A Neglected Aspect of the Psychology of
Religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(1), 37-45.
doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0201_4
Rishi Gherwal, S. (1930). Kundalini, The Mother of the Universe: The Mystery of Piercing
the Six Chakras. Retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com
Girard, R. (1977). Violence and the Sacred (Translated by Patrick Gregory). Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
55
Guzder, J. (2011). Women who jump into wells: Reflections on suicidality in women from
conflict regions of the Indian subcontinent. Transcultural Psychiatry, 48, 585-603.
doi:10.1177/1363461511425098
Guzik, D. (2013). Mark 2 - Controversy with Religious Leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4102.htm
The Holy Quran (Translated by Maulawi Sher'Ali)(2004). Retrieved from
https://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-English.pdf
Hsieh, H-F. & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
de Jong, J., Oomen, J. & Ophuis, M. (2010). Psychometric assessment of a unified religiosity
scale.
Katha Upanishad. From the Upanishads (Translated by Charles Johnston, 1899). Retrieved
from http://www.sacred-texts.com
Al-Imam ibn Kathir, I. (14th century). Stories of the Prophets (translator unknown). Retrieved
from http://www.islambasics.com/index.php?act=download&BID=85
Kettle, D. (2004). Engaging with Tragic Spirituality and Victim Sensibility: On the Cultural
Setting of Mission in the West Today. Mission Studies, 21(2), 287-312.
doi:10.1163/1573383042653659
The Laws of Manu (Translated by Friedrich Max Müller & Johann Georg Bühler, 1886).
Retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com
Lerner, M. & Simmons, C.H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the ‘innocent victim’:
Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 203–
210. doi:10.1037/h0023562
Major, A. (2006). Self-determined Sacrifices? Victimhood and Volition in British
56
Constructions of Sati in the Rajput States, 1830–60. History and Anthropology, 17(4),
313-325. doi:10.1080/02757200600914144
The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa, Book 3, Sabha Parva (Translated By Kisari
Mohan Ganguli, 1883-1896). Retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, D. (1965). Spiritual Depression: Its causes and its cure. Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Matthews, T., Johnson, L.M. & Jenks, C. (2011). Does Religious Involvement Generate or
Inhibit Fear of Crime? Religions, 2, 485-503. doi:10.3390/rel2040485
Meister, C. (2009). Introducing philosophy of religion. Milton, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Mernissi, F. (2001). Scheherazade Goes West. New York, NY: Washington Square Press.
Mernissi, F. (1993). The Forgotten Queens of Islam (translated by Mary Jo Lakeland).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mlodoch, K. (2012)."We Want to be Remembered as Strong Women, Not as Shepherds":
Women Anfal Survivors in Kurdistan-Iraq Struggling for Agency and
Acknowledgement. Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, 8(1), 63-91.
doi:10.2979/jmiddeastwomstud.8.1.63
Park, C.L. (2005). Religion as a Meaning-Making Framework in Coping with Life Stress.
Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 707-729. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x
Pew Research Center, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2012). The Global
Religious Landscape: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Major
Religious Groups as of 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/global-religion-full.pdf
Plantinga, A. (1974). God, freedom, & evil. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Possamaï, A. & Lee, M. (2004). New religious movements and the fear of crime. Journal of
Contemporary Religion, 19(3), 337-352. doi:10.1080/1353790042000266354
57
Rabho, L.A. (2013). From victimhood to empowerment: Muslim women's narratives in the
Shari'a courts of Jerusalem and Taibe. Contemporary Islam, 7, 267–281.
doi:10.1007/s11562-012-0200-4
The Rámáyan of Válmíki (Translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith, 1870-1874). Retrieved from
http://www.sacred-texts.com
The S’rîmad Devî Bhâgawatam, Part I & II (Translated By Swami Vijñanananda, 1921-22).
Retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com
Shaffer, L.S. (2008). Religion as a Large-Scale Justification System: Does the Justification
Hypothesis Explain Animistic Attribution? Theory and Psychology, 18(6), 779-799.
doi:10.1177/0959354308097257
Pt. Sri Rama Ramanuja Acharya (Compiled & Edited by)(2009), The Laws of Manu For the
21s Century. Retrieved from
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/manu_for_modern_times.pdf
Svetasvatara Upanishad (Translated by Friedrich Max Müller, 1879). Retrieved from
http://www.sacred-texts.com
The Texts Of The White Yajurveda (Translated By Ralph T. H. Griffith, 1899). Retrieved
from http://www.sacred-texts.com
Turner, D. W., III (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/qid.pdf
Van Dijk, J.J.M., & Sarkeshikian, H. (2013). On the contrasting concepts of victimhood in
Christian and Islamic cultures. In K. Boers, T. Feltes, J. Kinzig, L. W. Sherman, F.
Streng, & G. Trüg (Eds.), Kriminologie - Kriminalpolitik - Strafrecht (pp. 291-303).
Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
Van Dijk, J.J.M. (2009). Free the victim: A critique of the Western conception of
58
victimhood. International Review of Victimology, 16, 1–33.
doi:10.1177/026975800901600101
Weber, M. (1920). The Sociology of Religion. Retrieved from
http://book.e-reading-lib.org/bookreader.php/145149/The_Sociology_of_Religion.pdf
Wiesel, E. (1995). The Trial of God. New York, NY: Shocken Books.
Wood, E. & Subrahmanyam, S.V. (1911). The Garuda Purana (Saroddhara). Retrieved from
http://www.sacred-texts.com
59